Those games were so boring, frustrating, and pointless for me that the mere chance of having to play one took away all of my desire to play the format at all.
Thing is, I can easily sympathise with that, but what was going on there is one of two things:
1) The table had allowed your opponent to draft an absurd deck by passing too many good cards. It's the equivalent of a deck with three Wingsteed Riders, Favoured Hoplite, Phalanx Leader and a bunch of tricks, bestows and Ordeals in Theros.
2) Or alternatively, you were maybe reluctant to draft the archetypes that beat the less absurd self-mill builds? W/G Humans and G/R Werewolves are both fast enough, but you have to be prepared to pick cards like Elder Cathar and Villagers of Estwald really highly to make these decks work.
Basically what it comes down to is that if your opponent can take their time and flashback Gnaw to the Bone and Spider Spawning with most of their library in the 'yard, something's gone very wrong!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
Both of the Limited Resources hosts graded the 2013 sets in a recent episode, the divergences of their opinion from peopleon this are pretty stark especially re M14 and Brian's opinion of Modern Masters, which I would be interested in hearing people's replies to. Here's each host's ranking, with brief reasons:
Marshall:
1) Modern Masters [similar opinion to most in this thread]
2) M14 [Pros: solid limited experience, most colour combinations viable, no real non-mythic "bombs" rewarded strong limited skills, some build around me/synergy potential. Cons: slivers failed, no real agressive deck option]
3) Gatecrash [Pros: Fun mechanics, really enjoyed simic. Cons: Cipher failed, got stale quickly]
4) Theros [Pros: "combat tricks as removal" was interesting, set well balanced between agressive/midrange/control. Cons: very shallow, no build around me or synergy potential outside of the on-rails heroic deck]
5) DGM-GTC-RTR [Pros: none. Cons: a complete mess, in particular fixing - cluestones were simply too bad. The optimal DGM pack strategy of "pick the boring mono coloured card" felt awful]
Brian:
1) M14 [As above]
2) Gatecrash [As above, but particularly liked orzhov as well]
3) Theros [As above, but commended heroic and bestow for being genuinely novel limited mechanics]
4) Modern Masters [Liked the concept but not the execution. Did not enjoy the set due to the highly linear nature of the draft, due to strongly seeded archetypes. He noted that he had personally drafted all of the archetypes in their original form and so was personally disappointed that the set was essentially a mashup of old archetypes rather than trying to create something new. The linear nature of the archetypes meant that the draft gameplay was rarely surprising - the only real skill in the format was identifying the strong decks and then just drafting them. also thought that the very deep packs reduced draft skill (ie you weren't punished for not reading signals, because you still ended with a playable deck)]
5) DGM-GTC-RTR [As above]
I don't see why Brian expects a "new" experience from a set specifically made up entirely of old cards. They were limited by the nature of the set itself in what they could do by that limitation and I think the fact that they worked around said limitation so well is a testament to the effort put in by their design/dev teams here. Also the idea of playing all of these old archetypes together in one set is kind of new (it borrows from Cube to some extent, but it's also quite a bit more focused in this respect than most Cubes are).
I do agree that a set where all the packs are deep can make the actual drafting portion easier at times, but it can also lead to more interesting deck-building decisions when you have multiple cards that, while playable in most formats, would have to stay on the bench just because the pool is so deep here. It's a bit of a double-edged sword I think. Personally I find sets like AVR where you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to get 23 "playables" are just as bad in this respect as sets like MMA where you have an abundance of riches. Obviously the sweet-spot lies somewhere in between but in a set specifically dedicated to reprinting some of the most powerful cards in the past 10 or so years I can accept them not hitting that spot.
THS C+. Absurdly bad removal and voltron mechanics makes a for games were players can't obstruct the opponent's plan. Feels a bit like a race to who gets the best thing on board first. Scry and Heroic makes up partially for the basic flaws imo.
M14 C+. Color balance is bad (blue is too strong, white has a large density of bad cards so it's just a support color at best). Slivers would be very fairly good if blue didn't get 6 solid common/uncommon flyers across the whole curve. I like the enchantment theme a lot. It has a perfectly adequate amount of removal and it's one of the set with the best rares to build around (although that element only shines on sealed).
MMA A-: It was pretty good. Large amount of archtypes, the many synergies were all balanced. General balance is good (only need a bit more uncommon high quality removal imo). The only issue i have with the set is that the deck build itself up. The synergies are too obvious and make too many restrictions on deck building.
DGR B: It was a incredibly hard to draft format. People didn't pick the signals and the set has a odd spot of mana fixing (too many for extra colors to be ignored, too little to make everyone on the table happy about their mana). Like all block drafts, it has a high replay value because there are many more cards but as a downside it's really inconsistent and chaotic at times.
GTC B-: I actually think it's a balanced format. People just took to many time to learn how to play WB and UB, but those were actually fair decks. Boros was, imo, a bit too good/easy to draft and simic was incredibly boring.
RTR A-: super fun imo. It has perfect removal, the colors are quite balanced and they were all great to play with. Unlike GTC were decks are either too fast or too slow, this format were more balanced. The tempo element in azorius, the atypical UR aggro-like and the WG aggro who has a great late game plan (every simic was not!) were all very innovative and fun imo.
M13 A: The bets format in my memory. I really like core set and consider then better then expert sets because they are more focused on the basic elements of mtg which are superior in design (the basic color pie). M13 is not filled with mechanics that are not good enough to be permanent on the game and are only there to 'break the mod'. It has spot on removal (to many for some players), the color balance is great, wide variety of strategies, build-around-me-rares. The only issues are over the top mythics. Even thragtusk is not so scary in a format pacifism is good.
Marshall:
1) Modern Masters [similar opinion to most in this thread]
2) M14 [Pros: solid limited experience, most colour combinations viable, no real non-mythic "bombs" rewarded strong limited skills, some build around me/synergy potential. Cons: slivers failed, no real agressive deck option]
3) Gatecrash [Pros: Fun mechanics, really enjoyed simic. Cons: Cipher failed, got stale quickly]
4) Theros [Pros: "combat tricks as removal" was interesting, set well balanced between agressive/midrange/control. Cons: very shallow, no build around me or synergy potential outside of the on-rails heroic deck]
5) DGM-GTC-RTR [Pros: none. Cons: a complete mess, in particular fixing - cluestones were simply too bad. The optimal DGM pack strategy of "pick the boring mono coloured card" felt awful]
Brian:
1) M14 [As above]
2) Gatecrash [As above, but particularly liked orzhov as well]
3) Theros [As above, but commended heroic and bestow for being genuinely novel limited mechanics]
4) Modern Masters [Liked the concept but not the execution. Did not enjoy the set due to the highly linear nature of the draft, due to strongly seeded archetypes. He noted that he had personally drafted all of the archetypes in their original form and so was personally disappointed that the set was essentially a mashup of old archetypes rather than trying to create something new. The linear nature of the archetypes meant that the draft gameplay was rarely surprising - the only real skill in the format was identifying the strong decks and then just drafting them. also thought that the very deep packs reduced draft skill (ie you weren't punished for not reading signals, because you still ended with a playable deck)]
5) DGM-GTC-RTR [As above]
If we're talking about limited in general and consider sealed then M14 is indeed a A set. M14 is head and shoulders better then any expert set in recent memory for sealed. There's nothing better then a set were archtypes are defined by build-around-me cards and basic mtg game play elements, instead of pushed mechanics.
Personally, I've found that the holiday cube is an A+ for me. I don't know how well it would hold to play it for two months straights, but I really like the experience so far.
The main thing I like about it is, incidentally, something that set designers have avoided at all costs: a flat power line. Sure it's a very high line, but it's flatter than all other sets I've drafted. I find this reward good drafting and mostly good play. (I suppose MM was similar. I never played it.) Unlike something like Theros where your opponent can go 1-drop into ordeal and just win from that (or wingsteed, or... you know the picture.), you casn always draft enough power and enough answers in cube to deal with anything. (You can also draft a narrow deck that folds to some key cards, but I avoid those decks!) I've found my success rate and my rating has jumped up quite a bit and I enjoy the games more, even when I lose, because I never feel as helpless as in some set. I put this down to not having to draft and play irrelevant cards, and having a lot of good and powerful control and removal. Unlike recent sets.
Thing is, I can easily sympathise with that, but what was going on there is one of two things:
1) The table had allowed your opponent to draft an absurd deck by passing too many good cards. It's the equivalent of a deck with three Wingsteed Riders, Favoured Hoplite, Phalanx Leader and a bunch of tricks, bestows and Ordeals in Theros.
I don't agree that it's the equivalent deck. The Gnaw to the Bone/Spider Spawning deck that hit me three or four times ande made me quit Magic until RTR came out, is one that only works (I believe) if you have multiples of some uncommons and some specific support cards. And it's one that, if you get most but not all of what you need, is a deck that is very likely to fall completely flat on its face. Which makes it a risky deck to attempt to draft unless you're the guy who just happened to be in the right chair at the table, and even then is still somewhat risky.
Most people aren't going to take those risks, and for good reasons.
On the other hand, most of the cards in a Theros deck playing heroic synergies are decent on their own, and you can win the game handily without your game going exactly to plan, making it a much less risky type of deck to draft.
Also, I don't understand this concept of "allowed your opponent to draft an absurd deck". I never "allow" my opponents to do anything; I just draft the deck the best that I can, considering each card for its value in my deck, and leave the rest to the others (or at least, I try to; bad habits creep in and sometimes I'll take the off-color bomb rare just because I can't stand to let someone else have it!).
2) Or alternatively, you were maybe reluctant to draft the archetypes that beat the less absurd self-mill builds? W/G Humans and G/R Werewolves are both fast enough, but you have to be prepared to pick cards like Elder Cathar and Villagers of Estwald really highly to make these decks work.
I think this is closer to the truth. First, I'm not a very good drafter, and I was considerably worse during ISD block. So I didn't really have a plan for hedging my bets against the blue/green self-mill deck, my only plan was to try to assemble my best deck and let the chips fall where they may. And because of my poor drafting skills I likely didn't end up with the most competitive deck anyway.
And second, I was completely opposed to trying to draft the self-mill deck myself. I didn't want to have it played against me, and I didn't want to play it against anyone else either. If one out of 1000 cards had a razor blade in it that you could use to threaten your opponent into conceding the game, I wouldn't pick that either because it's not the way I want to play. I'd just quit playing a game that had that kind of dynamic in it. Which is why I quit playing ISD, mostly to spite Wizards for creating a game that had so much appeal to me and yet so often forced me into playing a match that just pissed me off immeasurably.
Basically what it comes down to is that if your opponent can take their time and flashback Gnaw to the Bone and Spider Spawning with most of their library in the 'yard, something's gone very wrong!
Not sure if you ever played against this deck. Invariably there'd be multiples of Armored Skaab, Selhoff Occultist, to put up a defensive wall to give the deck time to act, along with bounce and counterspells for disruption. Also if you're not used to "something going wrong" in a game of Magic, then you must be playing a very different game than I am, where "something going wrong" for one player or another is the deciding factor in 90% of games!
Personally, I've found that the holiday cube is an A+ for me. I don't know how well it would hold to play it for two months straights, but I really like the experience so far.
The main thing I like about it is, incidentally, something that set designers have avoided at all costs: a flat power line. Sure it's a very high line, but it's flatter than all other sets I've drafted. I find this reward good drafting and mostly good play. (I suppose MM was similar. I never played it.) Unlike something like Theros where your opponent can go 1-drop into ordeal and just win from that (or wingsteed, or... you know the picture.), you casn always draft enough power and enough answers in cube to deal with anything. (You can also draft a narrow deck that folds to some key cards, but I avoid those decks!) I've found my success rate and my rating has jumped up quite a bit and I enjoy the games more, even when I lose, because I never feel as helpless as in some set. I put this down to not having to draft and play irrelevant cards, and having a lot of good and powerful control and removal. Unlike recent sets.
You really just need to embrace the rage. I keep a small colony of hamsters next to my computer and every time I lose a match to mana screw I throw one against the wall.
I'm still wondering though. What strengths/weaknesses mentioned in this thread are downplayed (or accentuated(?)) in sealed as compared to draft?
I think that several people pointed out the fact that RTR had a few viable archetypes and so became repetitive after a while, which downgraded their RTR rating. I would propose that sealed reduces this problem somewhat, because you can't force an archetype as you can in a draft (picking the best cards for that archetype in draft both gives you a better chance to build a deck that follows that archetype, at the same time keeping others out of that archetype because they're not getting the archetype staples that you're taking out of the pool). In sealed you can try to play archetypes but only some pools will support any given archetype, or even any particular archetype at all.
By the end of RTR, when the phantom pools were introduced (best thing by far to happen to Magic Online in a long, long time, for me), I found that I was enjoying them even more than drafting because each game felt different and fresh, rather than being a rehash of the same strong archetypes over and over again.
I think that color balance issues affect draft and sealed differently. In draft, colors that are inherently weaker can still be good to go into because if it's generally recognized that a color is weak, people will be less likely to take it which means that the drafter that takes the risk of going into that color may be rewarded with a larger number of cards that are the best from that otherwise weak color, and the sum total of the best cards from a weak color over the course of a draft may very easily be better than what you get from fighting over the pool of cards of a 'good' color.
In sealed on the other hand, if a color is generally weaker than the others, you will invariably end up playing it less than the other colors because you will on average be getting an average pool of cards from each color. So the weaker color will less often present a set of cards of higher quality than those available from other colors in the pool.
Therefore I think that color balance issues have a greater negative impact on sealed than draft, but that sealed tends to outlast draft a bit for players who play alot and get tired of playing with or against the same or similar decks all of the time.
I don't see why Brian expects a "new" experience from a set specifically made up entirely of old cards. They were limited by the nature of the set itself in what they could do by that limitation and I think the fact that they worked around said limitation so well is a testament to the effort put in by their design/dev teams here. Also the idea of playing all of these old archetypes together in one set is kind of new (it borrows from Cube to some extent, but it's also quite a bit more focused in this respect than most Cubes are).
his issue was that the archetypes (in his opinion, I have no idea if it's true or not) were ports of the old ones using basically the same cards instead of mashing up a bunch of cards from different sets to create new synergies, which is certainly possible to do. It wasn't like cube or grab bag draft where something genuinely new is being created, it was a "best of" reprint old archetypes which he personally didn't enjoy.
Therefore I think that color balance issues have a greater negative impact on sealed than draft, but that sealed tends to outlast draft a bit for players who play alot and get tired of playing with or against the same or similar decks all of the time.
This is part of why I like Sealed (the other part being that I'm bad at drafting). At last Friday's local Theros Sealed event, I played a minotaurless BR tempo deck. When else would that happen?
I love the cube, but I don't understand this at all. There are much more unanswerable starts in holiday cube ('Force of Will or you're dead' stuff like turn 1 Blightsteel Colossus/Emrakul) than are possible in Theros.
The unpowered cube, on the other hand, felt amazingly flat in terms of deck power to me; I preferred it to the powered one.
I didn't try the unpowered one. I've never faced a turn 1 emrakul. From my understanding, you'd need 5 specific cards to pull that off (land, 2 mox, show and tell, emrakul), two of which could be replaced. (Or swamp, max, entomb, animate dead, but not with these creature, so it would not be *that* bad.) Seems unlikely. I do tend to draft control decks, so I tend to have o-ring and edict, bounce to deal with this stuff.
Usually, in my experience, the answer-this-real-soon-now stuff begins around turn 3.
Yeah, there isn't anything really busted your opponent can do turn 1 in powered cube, or at least no more busted than Library go. I've lost to land lotus Jace before but AFAICR that's the worst I've run up against. Turn 1 tinker requires several specific cards - more likely it's turn 2 which gives you access to much more removal.
I generally prefer powered to unpowered cube - it's certainly swingier so I can understand having the opposite opinion.
I didn't enjoy MM all that much for the cost - it played mostly like sprout swarm-less TPF (good) and a bit like LLM (bad) so the end result wasn't particularly interesting IMO. I'd mostly just rather play TPF.
Loved ISD online; paper the unwieldy nature of flip cards hurt the format. Having to take cards out of sleeves repeatedly was too much of a pain for the payoff of what the cards did. Using checklists wasn't an option because it prevented you reading the card while it was in your hand.
This got worse with DKA when there were enough playable flip cards that remembering them was a nightmare.
I didn't try the unpowered one. I've never faced a turn 1 emrakul. From my understanding, you'd need 5 specific cards to pull that off (land, 2 mox, show and tell, emrakul), two of which could be replaced. (Or swamp, max, entomb, animate dead, but not with these creature, so it would not be *that* bad.) Seems unlikely. I do tend to draft control decks, so I tend to have o-ring and edict, bounce to deal with this stuff.
Usually, in my experience, the answer-this-real-soon-now stuff begins around turn 3.
You could get a turn 1 Emrakul off 3 cards -> Black Lotus, Channel, Emrakul
This is part of why I like Sealed (the other part being that I'm bad at drafting). At last Friday's local Theros Sealed event, I played a minotaurless BR tempo deck. When else would that happen?
Yeah, I'm with you. Sealed is my fav format. It's one of the formats were creative deck building are more highly rewarded. Draft has the draft element that are super complex and skill rewarding but not knowing your full card pool while picking induces players to stay with the more safe archtypes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard - Serious BGU Control R Aggro
Standard - For Fun BG Auras
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thing is, I can easily sympathise with that, but what was going on there is one of two things:
1) The table had allowed your opponent to draft an absurd deck by passing too many good cards. It's the equivalent of a deck with three Wingsteed Riders, Favoured Hoplite, Phalanx Leader and a bunch of tricks, bestows and Ordeals in Theros.
2) Or alternatively, you were maybe reluctant to draft the archetypes that beat the less absurd self-mill builds? W/G Humans and G/R Werewolves are both fast enough, but you have to be prepared to pick cards like Elder Cathar and Villagers of Estwald really highly to make these decks work.
Basically what it comes down to is that if your opponent can take their time and flashback Gnaw to the Bone and Spider Spawning with most of their library in the 'yard, something's gone very wrong!
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I don't see why Brian expects a "new" experience from a set specifically made up entirely of old cards. They were limited by the nature of the set itself in what they could do by that limitation and I think the fact that they worked around said limitation so well is a testament to the effort put in by their design/dev teams here. Also the idea of playing all of these old archetypes together in one set is kind of new (it borrows from Cube to some extent, but it's also quite a bit more focused in this respect than most Cubes are).
I do agree that a set where all the packs are deep can make the actual drafting portion easier at times, but it can also lead to more interesting deck-building decisions when you have multiple cards that, while playable in most formats, would have to stay on the bench just because the pool is so deep here. It's a bit of a double-edged sword I think. Personally I find sets like AVR where you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to get 23 "playables" are just as bad in this respect as sets like MMA where you have an abundance of riches. Obviously the sweet-spot lies somewhere in between but in a set specifically dedicated to reprinting some of the most powerful cards in the past 10 or so years I can accept them not hitting that spot.
M14 C+. Color balance is bad (blue is too strong, white has a large density of bad cards so it's just a support color at best). Slivers would be very fairly good if blue didn't get 6 solid common/uncommon flyers across the whole curve. I like the enchantment theme a lot. It has a perfectly adequate amount of removal and it's one of the set with the best rares to build around (although that element only shines on sealed).
MMA A-: It was pretty good. Large amount of archtypes, the many synergies were all balanced. General balance is good (only need a bit more uncommon high quality removal imo). The only issue i have with the set is that the deck build itself up. The synergies are too obvious and make too many restrictions on deck building.
DGR B: It was a incredibly hard to draft format. People didn't pick the signals and the set has a odd spot of mana fixing (too many for extra colors to be ignored, too little to make everyone on the table happy about their mana). Like all block drafts, it has a high replay value because there are many more cards but as a downside it's really inconsistent and chaotic at times.
GTC B-: I actually think it's a balanced format. People just took to many time to learn how to play WB and UB, but those were actually fair decks. Boros was, imo, a bit too good/easy to draft and simic was incredibly boring.
RTR A-: super fun imo. It has perfect removal, the colors are quite balanced and they were all great to play with. Unlike GTC were decks are either too fast or too slow, this format were more balanced. The tempo element in azorius, the atypical UR aggro-like and the WG aggro who has a great late game plan (every simic was not!) were all very innovative and fun imo.
M13 A: The bets format in my memory. I really like core set and consider then better then expert sets because they are more focused on the basic elements of mtg which are superior in design (the basic color pie). M13 is not filled with mechanics that are not good enough to be permanent on the game and are only there to 'break the mod'. It has spot on removal (to many for some players), the color balance is great, wide variety of strategies, build-around-me-rares. The only issues are over the top mythics. Even thragtusk is not so scary in a format pacifism is good.
If we're talking about limited in general and consider sealed then M14 is indeed a A set. M14 is head and shoulders better then any expert set in recent memory for sealed. There's nothing better then a set were archtypes are defined by build-around-me cards and basic mtg game play elements, instead of pushed mechanics.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
The main thing I like about it is, incidentally, something that set designers have avoided at all costs: a flat power line. Sure it's a very high line, but it's flatter than all other sets I've drafted. I find this reward good drafting and mostly good play. (I suppose MM was similar. I never played it.) Unlike something like Theros where your opponent can go 1-drop into ordeal and just win from that (or wingsteed, or... you know the picture.), you casn always draft enough power and enough answers in cube to deal with anything. (You can also draft a narrow deck that folds to some key cards, but I avoid those decks!) I've found my success rate and my rating has jumped up quite a bit and I enjoy the games more, even when I lose, because I never feel as helpless as in some set. I put this down to not having to draft and play irrelevant cards, and having a lot of good and powerful control and removal. Unlike recent sets.
I don't agree that it's the equivalent deck. The Gnaw to the Bone/Spider Spawning deck that hit me three or four times ande made me quit Magic until RTR came out, is one that only works (I believe) if you have multiples of some uncommons and some specific support cards. And it's one that, if you get most but not all of what you need, is a deck that is very likely to fall completely flat on its face. Which makes it a risky deck to attempt to draft unless you're the guy who just happened to be in the right chair at the table, and even then is still somewhat risky.
Most people aren't going to take those risks, and for good reasons.
On the other hand, most of the cards in a Theros deck playing heroic synergies are decent on their own, and you can win the game handily without your game going exactly to plan, making it a much less risky type of deck to draft.
Also, I don't understand this concept of "allowed your opponent to draft an absurd deck". I never "allow" my opponents to do anything; I just draft the deck the best that I can, considering each card for its value in my deck, and leave the rest to the others (or at least, I try to; bad habits creep in and sometimes I'll take the off-color bomb rare just because I can't stand to let someone else have it!).
I think this is closer to the truth. First, I'm not a very good drafter, and I was considerably worse during ISD block. So I didn't really have a plan for hedging my bets against the blue/green self-mill deck, my only plan was to try to assemble my best deck and let the chips fall where they may. And because of my poor drafting skills I likely didn't end up with the most competitive deck anyway.
And second, I was completely opposed to trying to draft the self-mill deck myself. I didn't want to have it played against me, and I didn't want to play it against anyone else either. If one out of 1000 cards had a razor blade in it that you could use to threaten your opponent into conceding the game, I wouldn't pick that either because it's not the way I want to play. I'd just quit playing a game that had that kind of dynamic in it. Which is why I quit playing ISD, mostly to spite Wizards for creating a game that had so much appeal to me and yet so often forced me into playing a match that just pissed me off immeasurably.
Not sure if you ever played against this deck. Invariably there'd be multiples of Armored Skaab, Selhoff Occultist, to put up a defensive wall to give the deck time to act, along with bounce and counterspells for disruption. Also if you're not used to "something going wrong" in a game of Magic, then you must be playing a very different game than I am, where "something going wrong" for one player or another is the deciding factor in 90% of games!
I'd like to just +1 this entire post.
I think that several people pointed out the fact that RTR had a few viable archetypes and so became repetitive after a while, which downgraded their RTR rating. I would propose that sealed reduces this problem somewhat, because you can't force an archetype as you can in a draft (picking the best cards for that archetype in draft both gives you a better chance to build a deck that follows that archetype, at the same time keeping others out of that archetype because they're not getting the archetype staples that you're taking out of the pool). In sealed you can try to play archetypes but only some pools will support any given archetype, or even any particular archetype at all.
By the end of RTR, when the phantom pools were introduced (best thing by far to happen to Magic Online in a long, long time, for me), I found that I was enjoying them even more than drafting because each game felt different and fresh, rather than being a rehash of the same strong archetypes over and over again.
I think that color balance issues affect draft and sealed differently. In draft, colors that are inherently weaker can still be good to go into because if it's generally recognized that a color is weak, people will be less likely to take it which means that the drafter that takes the risk of going into that color may be rewarded with a larger number of cards that are the best from that otherwise weak color, and the sum total of the best cards from a weak color over the course of a draft may very easily be better than what you get from fighting over the pool of cards of a 'good' color.
In sealed on the other hand, if a color is generally weaker than the others, you will invariably end up playing it less than the other colors because you will on average be getting an average pool of cards from each color. So the weaker color will less often present a set of cards of higher quality than those available from other colors in the pool.
Therefore I think that color balance issues have a greater negative impact on sealed than draft, but that sealed tends to outlast draft a bit for players who play alot and get tired of playing with or against the same or similar decks all of the time.
his issue was that the archetypes (in his opinion, I have no idea if it's true or not) were ports of the old ones using basically the same cards instead of mashing up a bunch of cards from different sets to create new synergies, which is certainly possible to do. It wasn't like cube or grab bag draft where something genuinely new is being created, it was a "best of" reprint old archetypes which he personally didn't enjoy.
This is part of why I like Sealed (the other part being that I'm bad at drafting). At last Friday's local Theros Sealed event, I played a minotaurless BR tempo deck. When else would that happen?
I didn't try the unpowered one. I've never faced a turn 1 emrakul. From my understanding, you'd need 5 specific cards to pull that off (land, 2 mox, show and tell, emrakul), two of which could be replaced. (Or swamp, max, entomb, animate dead, but not with these creature, so it would not be *that* bad.) Seems unlikely. I do tend to draft control decks, so I tend to have o-ring and edict, bounce to deal with this stuff.
Usually, in my experience, the answer-this-real-soon-now stuff begins around turn 3.
I generally prefer powered to unpowered cube - it's certainly swingier so I can understand having the opposite opinion.
I didn't enjoy MM all that much for the cost - it played mostly like sprout swarm-less TPF (good) and a bit like LLM (bad) so the end result wasn't particularly interesting IMO. I'd mostly just rather play TPF.
This got worse with DKA when there were enough playable flip cards that remembering them was a nightmare.
You could get a turn 1 Emrakul off 3 cards -> Black Lotus, Channel, Emrakul
Yeah, I'm with you. Sealed is my fav format. It's one of the formats were creative deck building are more highly rewarded. Draft has the draft element that are super complex and skill rewarding but not knowing your full card pool while picking induces players to stay with the more safe archtypes.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras