I think the real barrier to enforcing hygiene standards is that it's going to be open to a lot of slippery slope complaints. Someone is going to get banned for being <nasty> by a judge who is only 20% less <nasty>. Or the guys with buttcracks are going to get banned and then complain that foul odor or having half-naked anime chicks on your playmat is actually more disgusting, which could be true. Or the guys who get banned for smelling terrible are going to say I OFFERED TO GO GET DEODORANT IN MY ROOM WHY DID THEY EJECT ME FROM THE TOURNAMENT?!? Or the rule won't be applied in a fair way since like, there are some cracks that are very offensive and likely to be reported, whereas other cracks are not visible from across the room and will attract less enforcement attention.
Overall I have no problem with arbitrary hygiene rules.
What game doesn't have at least some degree of luck? I mean, besides Chess, I guess.
Chess actually still has luck in it, and the luck can be pretty stupid Since you can't see infinitely far ahead, it's always possible that a move you make will turn out to be far above or far below your skill level. This is particularly true when I myself play chess because I am not very good
When you say all of this isn't a huge incentive to get better, I think you've answered your own questions. I won't try to talk you out of it or convince you to stay the course, but I believe you made this thread because you're looking for other people's "other reasons" for sticking it out. Like, fulfillment in brewing and challenge, whatever it may be, I'm sure you've heard all this before.
Well I mainly wanted to make sure there weren't any huge counterarguments against my viewpoint. I actually do understand people who are satisfied with just trying to get as good as possible but are willing to go unrewarded for it unless they go into pro-grinding mode. Okay maybe I don't... actually... but there's no analytical argument against it
Well yeah, sure. Magic is a heap of fun but I'm asking what the point in trying to get competitively good in magic is. Showing up once or twice a week to events can be its own reward.
And not to be rude, but you seem a bit on the arrogant side, as if you somehow always make the right plays, but lose because your opponent "with a double digit IQ" is playing some stupid green deck and drew a god hand.
Yeah I really don't always play perfectly. It's just that I shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat morons. Kind of like how if I were playing chess with them, I could make a lot of mistakes, and still win almost every time.
Bluntly, you're probably not as good as you think you are. I know with certainty that I'm well above average intelligence, but I make plenty of play errors, and they lose me games sometimes. On the other hand, sometimes my opponents make play errors and they win me games. I think Magic players overall are of above average intelligence... I've played against a lot of people that were not very good players, but that was more often because they were new to the game (or new to competitive play) than because they were on the dim side.
Okay I am on the arrogant side
Also, regardless of how good I am now, I specifically said in the OP that I wanted to avoid talking about my own games. The pros I reference play better than any of us ever will (probably), and still don't get rewarded as much as they should. It's probably naive of me but I think the best player should win the event. Failing that, I think the best player should have a great chance to win the event. But they're don't. No one has good odds to win the event because there are so many people participating and so much randomness in the game. MTG would be more tolerable on an elo based system (OKAY I KNOW THIS HAD TONS OF PROBLEMS IN THE PAST!!!) where you get rewarded for going 6-2 consistently and no one cares that you went x-0 one because duh that's just going to happen if you play enough events.
I've found this to be even more true in legacy and modern. Magic players who can't keep up mentally tend to quit after a couple years, tend to stick to the casual table rather than FNM, and don't tend to get into the formats where they can be easily out-played. Another aspect of magic (again more true in modern & legacy) is that a significant part of playing well has more to do repetition, memorization, knowledge of the various popular or "tier 1" decks, and correct sideboard choices than about strict intelligence. I rarely feel like my opponent is smarter, but I often feel like they were able to make better decisions because they knew exactly what I was trying to do from turn 1 and played accordingly, whereas I let a seemingly innocent card slip by, not realizing it was going to spell doom for me when they slammed the other lock piece down 2 turns later. It's the price I pay for only playing a couple times a month instead of practically living at the card shop. Also the price I pay for playing legacy, where there's like 100 viable archtypes rather than half a dozen.
I do not have much experience with modern and none with legacy, but I'll ask if the win rates for the best players are appreciably different than those for standard? I played storm in modern for a little while, and while it did give me lots of decisions and consistency, it seemed like there was still a lot of luck in games where I have a turn 3 kill, or they stumble, or they draw their hate card, etc.
Let's say two people are playing the same deck. They both start the game at 5 life with only swamps, desecration demon, and hero's downfalls in their decks.
The opening turns are "land go". Once I hit 4 mana, assuming I have some demons and downfalls in my hand, what do I do?
If I play a demon, it probably gets downfalled. My opponent untaps and then plays their own demon. Then I untap can either play demon or downfall. If I play demon to match his, then I risk him downfalling my demon on his turn and then swinging lethal. So I should always prefer to downfall his demon first. When I downfall his demon, he then untaps, I have no threat on the board, and his optimal play is to jam another demon. Repeat until I falter.
If I hold up mana and don't play a demon, and just downfall my opponent's demon, then play my own, the situation is reversed, and I feel favored. I.e. getting to play the demon SECOND means that you can play an uninterrupted stream of demons, whereas playing the FIRST demon means you are committing to playing just one demon (and seeing if it sticks...) and then removing all of the demons your opponent has until one of you runs out of steam.
What is the correct strategy for this minigame? Or does it not matter assuming both players have equal draws?
One thing people are overlooking is that control doesn't need to get any new cards to become stronger. The cards they print for other archetypes can impact the meta and determine how strong control is.
For example, Xenagos might push midrange decks over the top and force them to start playing bigger creatures. It might become less viable to maindeck stormbreath if your opponent is maindecking kalonian hydras. Less board space to mess around playing 10 planeswalkers when the name-of-the-game is get the biggest guy on board...
I've played over 200 games with U/W control with a slightly positive EV in 2 man tournament q's online.
There are a bazillion problems with the deck. Yes, it does great against monoblack and monoblue devotion, and respectably against aggro for a control deck. It does horribly against R/G monsters. This is because the tempo of the devotion decks is relatively slow, and the fast tempo of aggro decks is irrelevant because they can't really punish you for tapping out. R/G monsters has fast tempo and can punish you severely for tapping out.
Turn 2 domri
Turn 3 xenagos
Turn 4 stormbreath
Followed by more stormbreaths, more planeswalkers, and 6/6 mistcutters if you're in G2.
Why can't I hold all these detention spheres
Why can't I hold all these verdicts
Oh wait, I only have 4 of each and they have 8 protection threats and 10-12 planeswalkers post board. Hope I'm on the play with a negate in hand... Hope they don't draw destructive revelry and get back their token factory.
It's just such a poor matchup. I can beat my friend consistently when he plays monoblack, but when he plays R/G monsters I lose 80% of the time regardless of what crazy board tech I bring in.
Then there's the American control hate, which is not really worth complaining about although if two players are of equal skill and know each other's deck lists, I think America has G1. There's simply no way for azorius to punish their 3 colour mana base.
Against MonoB NT is ok. Usually you steal a Underworld connection activation and end up trading him off for a creature in combat. I only have had him on the board in three games in that match-up but it was just so-so. I don't bring it in anymore unless the MonoB deck is a little rouge.
I had 2x elspeth 1x elixir in my azorius deck. Elspeth feels okay. I might cut a hero's downfall for her. I have 3 in my deck at the moment but that might be too much. I'm just tired of R/G monsters planeswalker spam.
I actually thought about it and decided that the BBOV plan has some weaknesses that Aetherling doesn't. I think BBOV is reasonable in most of your G1 except against control where he is miserable and monoblack where he is only okay depending on how many devour fleshes they draw.
I think G2 he is pretty good against aggro decks (they can still brave through him...), but G2 he is bad against almost all the rest of the field. Monoblack brings in LBZ's against you, which means you are giving them the potential for a 2-for-1 in a matchup defined almost entirely by card advantage. Control doesn't care about BBOV. G/R monsters are all bigger than him and they have mortars anyway. Trading 1:1 at 5 mana is not what I want to be doing.
Although in the control matchup, playing BBOV can force them to tap out for verdict or elspeth, which you can then use to your advantage to push a bigger threat or to draw more cards. Subtle.
I actually am going to steal your 2x BBOV win con plan. I am currently running 1 Elixir 1 Aetherling no Elspeth (which may also change...). What I liked about Aetherling was that it ends the game quickly, and that once it has resolved your opponent cannot interact with it effectively. In the control mirror, it rewards you for outplaying your opponent. At least in game 1... In game 2, pithing needle does work and effectively stretches out the countermagic war across 2 turns. So you have to already be ahead for this to work.
I wouldn't take out Verdict. Even though flare hits BBOV, flare is a lot worse against Elspeth tokens. Flare is also counterable if that becomes a battle worth fighting for some reason.
But what you say about thief is true - if they rev first, you have the advantage and can probably steal the rev. The only issue I have is if they don't rev first but instead do it in response to you tapping out. So NT becomes kind of like a liability in the "land-go" game.
I'm not sure if I'll take him out of my sideboard, but it is worth exploring how the card does or doesn't work.
Do you have any experience siding him in against mono black? They bring in 3 Erebos.
Just a note on notion thief, I find that it absolutely curb stomps players who are not expecting it. But against control players who are decent, your chances of stealing a rev are very low.
For one thing, opponents can simply choose to rev when you rev. If you both leave up one slot for countermagic, flashing in notion thief means they can counter it. If you leave up two slots for countermagic... then it is not a very big rev and probably not worth it in the first place. In either case, your opponent can simply match the number of counterspell slots you leave open.
Notion thief is only good if they rev first and you can see how many countermagic slots they've left open. So as long as they don't rev first, you're okay.
Your best realistic case scenario is to steal a divination, which is still really good, but this is pretty much specific to the Azorius matchup and even then some of them only run 2, so the chances of notion thief actually lining up at a relevant time are pretty low.
Also you are esper, so they leave in verdicts and have no problems dealing with this card after it hits the board. If you're playing the esper mirror, the level of hand disruption brought in will significantly reduce the chances that anyone dives head first into a notion thief.
Agreed. My ideal play is just to downfall the Jace EOT when they play it. Counters for big revs or Aetherling.
I'm just wondering if dissolve is worth doing without completely. Syncopate is a much easier spell to cast early in the game, and late in the game when they have lots of mana, we likely have control already.
According to Frank Analysis, running 16 blue mana symbols (most Esper lists) means we can cast dissolve on turn 5. This isn't too bad, but I noticed in the control mirror I generally want to always have countermagic up in the early-mid game so they can't jam Aetherling on me. But I find it very difficult to cast cards like Jace *and* still have 2 blue up for dissolve.
Would I be better served with 3x syncopate instead? I run 2x syncopate currently. Would I be better off cutting dissolve for negate/gainsay in the mirror? Or do I just want All The Counters?
Hits almost everything game 1
Can get you a 2-for-1 against aggro decks
Exiles, which can be relevant against some creatures
Is an out to pack rat
Cons:
Usually a 3 mana 1-for-1 removal spell
Sorcery speed
Your opponent can blow up your D-spheres post board with Glare/Revelry/Cyclonic
Can be gainsayed, I guess. This is most relevant in the mono-U g2/g3
Compare D-sphere to hero's downfall which is not substantially more difficult to cast, hits almost everything, and by the way is instant speed and offers your opponents no opportunity to fight back via Cyclonic Glare of Revelry.
I recall LSV mentioned recently that D-sphere is a mandatory 4-of. Really?
I agree that most Esper lists seem pretty inconsistent... I'm actually about to make another thread
edit: I lied. I read some numbers wrong at home on my laptop. I was going to ask if it was a good idea to cut down on Jaces since you only run 16 blue mana sources, but this is enough 90% of the time to make Jace a 5-drop, which isn't bad. Still not sold on 4x Jace but maybe I am biased because I've been getting stuck on 1 blue mana lately
Overall I have no problem with arbitrary hygiene rules.
Well I mainly wanted to make sure there weren't any huge counterarguments against my viewpoint. I actually do understand people who are satisfied with just trying to get as good as possible but are willing to go unrewarded for it unless they go into pro-grinding mode. Okay maybe I don't... actually... but there's no analytical argument against it
Well yeah, sure. Magic is a heap of fun but I'm asking what the point in trying to get competitively good in magic is. Showing up once or twice a week to events can be its own reward.
Yeah I really don't always play perfectly. It's just that I shouldn't have to play perfectly to beat morons. Kind of like how if I were playing chess with them, I could make a lot of mistakes, and still win almost every time.
Okay I am on the arrogant side
Also, regardless of how good I am now, I specifically said in the OP that I wanted to avoid talking about my own games. The pros I reference play better than any of us ever will (probably), and still don't get rewarded as much as they should. It's probably naive of me but I think the best player should win the event. Failing that, I think the best player should have a great chance to win the event. But they're don't. No one has good odds to win the event because there are so many people participating and so much randomness in the game. MTG would be more tolerable on an elo based system (OKAY I KNOW THIS HAD TONS OF PROBLEMS IN THE PAST!!!) where you get rewarded for going 6-2 consistently and no one cares that you went x-0 one because duh that's just going to happen if you play enough events.
I do not have much experience with modern and none with legacy, but I'll ask if the win rates for the best players are appreciably different than those for standard? I played storm in modern for a little while, and while it did give me lots of decisions and consistency, it seemed like there was still a lot of luck in games where I have a turn 3 kill, or they stumble, or they draw their hate card, etc.
The opening turns are "land go". Once I hit 4 mana, assuming I have some demons and downfalls in my hand, what do I do?
If I play a demon, it probably gets downfalled. My opponent untaps and then plays their own demon. Then I untap can either play demon or downfall. If I play demon to match his, then I risk him downfalling my demon on his turn and then swinging lethal. So I should always prefer to downfall his demon first. When I downfall his demon, he then untaps, I have no threat on the board, and his optimal play is to jam another demon. Repeat until I falter.
If I hold up mana and don't play a demon, and just downfall my opponent's demon, then play my own, the situation is reversed, and I feel favored. I.e. getting to play the demon SECOND means that you can play an uninterrupted stream of demons, whereas playing the FIRST demon means you are committing to playing just one demon (and seeing if it sticks...) and then removing all of the demons your opponent has until one of you runs out of steam.
What is the correct strategy for this minigame? Or does it not matter assuming both players have equal draws?
For example, Xenagos might push midrange decks over the top and force them to start playing bigger creatures. It might become less viable to maindeck stormbreath if your opponent is maindecking kalonian hydras. Less board space to mess around playing 10 planeswalkers when the name-of-the-game is get the biggest guy on board...
There are a bazillion problems with the deck. Yes, it does great against monoblack and monoblue devotion, and respectably against aggro for a control deck. It does horribly against R/G monsters. This is because the tempo of the devotion decks is relatively slow, and the fast tempo of aggro decks is irrelevant because they can't really punish you for tapping out. R/G monsters has fast tempo and can punish you severely for tapping out.
Turn 2 domri
Turn 3 xenagos
Turn 4 stormbreath
Followed by more stormbreaths, more planeswalkers, and 6/6 mistcutters if you're in G2.
Why can't I hold all these detention spheres
Why can't I hold all these verdicts
Oh wait, I only have 4 of each and they have 8 protection threats and 10-12 planeswalkers post board. Hope I'm on the play with a negate in hand... Hope they don't draw destructive revelry and get back their token factory.
It's just such a poor matchup. I can beat my friend consistently when he plays monoblack, but when he plays R/G monsters I lose 80% of the time regardless of what crazy board tech I bring in.
Then there's the American control hate, which is not really worth complaining about although if two players are of equal skill and know each other's deck lists, I think America has G1. There's simply no way for azorius to punish their 3 colour mana base.
I think G2 he is pretty good against aggro decks (they can still brave through him...), but G2 he is bad against almost all the rest of the field. Monoblack brings in LBZ's against you, which means you are giving them the potential for a 2-for-1 in a matchup defined almost entirely by card advantage. Control doesn't care about BBOV. G/R monsters are all bigger than him and they have mortars anyway. Trading 1:1 at 5 mana is not what I want to be doing.
Although in the control matchup, playing BBOV can force them to tap out for verdict or elspeth, which you can then use to your advantage to push a bigger threat or to draw more cards. Subtle.
But what you say about thief is true - if they rev first, you have the advantage and can probably steal the rev. The only issue I have is if they don't rev first but instead do it in response to you tapping out. So NT becomes kind of like a liability in the "land-go" game.
I'm not sure if I'll take him out of my sideboard, but it is worth exploring how the card does or doesn't work.
Do you have any experience siding him in against mono black? They bring in 3 Erebos.
For one thing, opponents can simply choose to rev when you rev. If you both leave up one slot for countermagic, flashing in notion thief means they can counter it. If you leave up two slots for countermagic... then it is not a very big rev and probably not worth it in the first place. In either case, your opponent can simply match the number of counterspell slots you leave open.
Notion thief is only good if they rev first and you can see how many countermagic slots they've left open. So as long as they don't rev first, you're okay.
Your best realistic case scenario is to steal a divination, which is still really good, but this is pretty much specific to the Azorius matchup and even then some of them only run 2, so the chances of notion thief actually lining up at a relevant time are pretty low.
Also you are esper, so they leave in verdicts and have no problems dealing with this card after it hits the board. If you're playing the esper mirror, the level of hand disruption brought in will significantly reduce the chances that anyone dives head first into a notion thief.
I'm just wondering if dissolve is worth doing without completely. Syncopate is a much easier spell to cast early in the game, and late in the game when they have lots of mana, we likely have control already.
Would I be better served with 3x syncopate instead? I run 2x syncopate currently. Would I be better off cutting dissolve for negate/gainsay in the mirror? Or do I just want All The Counters?
Hits almost everything game 1
Can get you a 2-for-1 against aggro decks
Exiles, which can be relevant against some creatures
Is an out to pack rat
Cons:
Usually a 3 mana 1-for-1 removal spell
Sorcery speed
Your opponent can blow up your D-spheres post board with Glare/Revelry/Cyclonic
Can be gainsayed, I guess. This is most relevant in the mono-U g2/g3
Compare D-sphere to hero's downfall which is not substantially more difficult to cast, hits almost everything, and by the way is instant speed and offers your opponents no opportunity to fight back via Cyclonic Glare of Revelry.
I recall LSV mentioned recently that D-sphere is a mandatory 4-of. Really?
edit: I lied. I read some numbers wrong at home on my laptop. I was going to ask if it was a good idea to cut down on Jaces since you only run 16 blue mana sources, but this is enough 90% of the time to make Jace a 5-drop, which isn't bad. Still not sold on 4x Jace but maybe I am biased because I've been getting stuck on 1 blue mana lately