Magic Market Index for Feb 8th, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Feb 1st, 2018
 
Magic Market Index for Dec 28th, 2018
  • posted a message on Meta difference between Single match and "Traditional" constructed games
    Quote from Colt47 »
    Quote from JaishivaJai »
    What rank on the ladder for bo1 does it all become the same deck? I"m on gold level 3 and there is still a diversity in the decks.


    I'm in gold at the moment and it feels like no one is really doing much in that tier. I've played probably 40-50 games over the last two days and I've seen nothing but blue, red, or white aggro. Sometimes it goes into Esper Control with Teferi or a gates deck.

    I'm pretty sure the game gets a ton better at Platinum and Diamond, since that is where I've seen the most people just camp out their days.

    It is very clear that mono-red and mono-blue dominate the meta. However, there are a good variety of decks when I play. There is also straight G/B Midrange explore, and explore with hydroid krasis. Other krasis decks around besides that. My guess is that the mono red and blue decks account for 30-50% of the meta.

    Recently, I've tuned my bo1 deck even further and beat mono-red consistently, and mono-blue nearly as often. It's helped me gain some points. Magic tends to just have metas like that in general with standard. 1-2 decks may dominate for a while. Then a new set comes, or the meta adapts and there's greater diversity again.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Meta difference between Single match and "Traditional" constructed games
    What rank on the ladder for bo1 does it all become the same deck? I"m on gold level 3 and there is still a diversity in the decks.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Meta difference between Single match and "Traditional" constructed games
    Indeed. I am breaking into the bo1 format with Gruul however. I almost never see anyone playing it. I'm having success continuing to climb the ladder and beat the dreaded mono-red and mono-blue. It hasn't been easy, but it's been fun. I feel confident this deck is going to take me to ever higher in the ranks once I figure out the rest of the cards.

    Bo1 is busted by linear decks, but that doesn't mean you can't make your own linear deck to combat the specific meta that arises. It's a fun challenge for me despite being an experienced player. Totally get it's not for everyone though. If I had more time/$ for cards I might dabble in more bo3.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Meta difference between Single match and "Traditional" constructed games
    You could still have real chat so long as each player had the ability to turn it off. If someone is a jerk, mute them.

    I agree with you in part idSurge. Bo1 is no where near bo3. However, Magic is an extremely complex game. It is hard to get people into it, believe me I've seen plenty of failures around that. Wizards main goal should be to get new people into the game, and bo1 helps immensely. You need fewer cards to build a deck for it, and it's much less complex to learn on bo1. That gets more people into the game, which leads to more people playing competitively/in paper eventually.

    When you get down to it, growth of the game is the most important factor for everyone who wishes to continue playing Magic for another 2+ decades to come. While Arena isn't perfect (that's why it's in Beta still) and Wizards continuously mess up their planning/announcements, the game continues to thrive after 26 years. We must endure Magic's growing pains. Hold out hope that Wizards do often correct/change things quite often. This is our painful growing phase before Magic continues to explode through Arena.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Meta difference between Single match and "Traditional" constructed games
    Yes it does become quite a grind. I'm doing pretty well with my Gruul deck though. Hopefully wizards figures something out with bo1 that makes it a bit less linear. You can beat these mass aggro decks if you build the right deck. I just like the speed of the games. Bo3 takes so much time to complete comparatively.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Gruulggro
    Gotcha. The idea of winning with a haste 12/12 trample is sexy indeed.

    Been heavily modifying the deck lately as I'm focusing on bo1 Arena game right now. Despite me missing bo3, it's much easier to build and play a bo1. Anyone else out there playing bo1 decks right now?

    I'm going to try out stony strength. My goal is to beat the red tide. With bo1, you must lower the curve/make every card count when it comes down. Anyway, stony strength is my way to trounce mono-red. I play so many games against them; that's also why I include the shocks. However, I believe stony strength to be worth considering at least as a 1 of in sideboard for bo3. Hidden tech here is, you can use stony strength to get an extra growth chamber guardian by only playing 1 mana instead of 3. Try to shock my guardian? Sure, it lives, I get another copy in hand, blocks your creature and becomes a 3/3. It's worth looking at.

    This is my approximate deck. I built it last night and still downloading the new update, so this is by memory. While the deck has had good success with a lower curve, I have yet to test the Stony strength of it yet.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on Why do I constantly have the same cards in my hand, and see the same ones from opponents?
    Quote from idSurge »
    Because of your curve. The hand manipulation 100% is at work here. I'm quite sure, if we could somehow test against bots, someone could script things to find the algorithm, and give you an 'optimal' 60, for Best of 1.

    EDIT: Would you run 18 lands in paper? Hell no. Can you get away with it on Arena? You bet.

    Follow up on this comment. I was hitting a wall in my bo1 rank. I realized I need to make every card basically do something the turn it comes down, or provide card advantage, or be instant speed removal. This is how mono-red gets so far. It needs so few lands, and can basically always play cards. Me getting hands with like 2 3 drop creatures just wasn't fast enough.

    I further modified my deck to again combat mono-red. The top of my curve is now 4 Rekindling Phoenix, no other 4 drops. Anyway, lowering my mana curve to like 2.7 on average made me start climbing the ladder again. I also removed a land to combat these "You're going to keep drawing lands for the next many turns" kind of games. My motto became "I will never have to mulligan again." If you mulligan, or even go second sometimes, it becomes too hard to win. The draw back of going first in paper is that if you mulligan, you're going to have a hard time. However, with the hand fixing system, mulligans are becoming a thing of the past, so long as you build your deck right. That means the players going second aren't getting as much as an advantage as they used to.

    I am a bit worried as to how linear bo1 may become eventually. I mean, we're all still learning how best to adapt or exploit this new hand system, and also the weird shuffling.

    Despite all that, there is a meta developing beyond red. There are a few distinct decks out there, but red accounts for almost half of the meta it seems to me. I'm gold level 3 right now. I've heard people say the meta changes as you go up the ladder. You higher ranking players still experiencing the red wave?
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Why do I constantly have the same cards in my hand, and see the same ones from opponents?
    Yeah, the bo1 hand system is a bit whack. Hopefully they will learn to make it more fair soon.

    *Puts tin foil hat on* Artist Some say that the rigging goes far beyond what they actually admit to. That the game gives you a bit better hands when you start playing for the day. However, the more gold/rewards you earn, they start making your hands a bit less good.

    Also, it's clear there are far too many instances of weird stuff going on with lands beyond that opening hand business too. I've had quite a few games where I don't draw any land except for the 2-3 I start with for many turns. I mean, my deck has like 42 cards left in it, and I still don't have another land. The odds of this happening are about 1 per 937 games. I doubt I've even played that many games yet, or maybe approaching that number. This no land draw has happened to me more times than I can count now.

    Conversely, who else hits land after land after land? It becomes so ridiculous sometimes, like drawing 5-8 lands in a row. The odds of drawing 5 lands in a row, with a deck now at 49 cards and 19 land left in it are 1 in 163. 7 lands in a row (happened more then once to me) 1 in 1,704 games. I certainly haven't played 1700 games, yet this has happened to me multiple times, along with all the other nonsense?

    It shows a clear pattern of incredible odds. People recognize it. Hopefully Wizards will fix it.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Gruulggro
    You don't like Rekindling Pheonix over the other 4 drops? Also do you really want4 Rhythym of the wilds? Seems like you wouldn't want more then one per game usually. Taking 2 turns off of playing creatures isn't something we want to do. Seems like 3 mb would be better.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on Gruulggro
    I beat White aggro with my "tuned for bo1" build. I think having Zur-taa goblin mainboard helps a lot. It's why I've eschewed llanowars and pelt collector. I want all of my creatures to be decent attackers/blocker the turn they come down, and preferably avoid shock. I think pelt collector and the elves are causing you to give up too many other good creature card slots against them.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on Which is a better value, paper or Arena?
    Hello Penguin! If you are a good limited player you will find "going infinite" to be the norm. on gem costing events. I mean, I can't play forever with one entry, but I also make back at least half my entry cost, often times more. I'd be interested to see how much my average cost for a 1500 game draft actually works out to. I'm guessing my average cost after my winnings for one of those drafts to be like 200 gems or something.

    login, if you have a bit of time and like playing limited, yeah the cost of a good standard deck does go down by quite a bit.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Gruulggro
    What about Find/Finality? Sorry, don't know how to do these card tags. I get the feeling that Rhythm of the wilds is too slow for our deck beyond sideboarding. I feel the same about Ghalta. I think we can build a more consistent, faster deck without including these cards. This deck really has the ability to just punch right through in the early game, and still keep pressure up should the game go long. Perhaps this is my bo1 game play style on Arena, but a 3 cost enchantment doesn't make sense when we have such a plethora of other good creature/burn spells in the same mana slot. I'm starting to think Domri may be okay in the deck once you've filled up your 4 Rekindling Phoenix slots.

    It just seems better to play a Gruul spellbreaker, Jadelight Ranger, lightning strike, Growth-Chamber Guardian, zur-taa goblin or some other creature that starts to put pressure on earlier. It can lead to some fun wins occasionally to be sure. However, I feel the midrange/aggro deck dream is to have continuous card advantage or at least filtering spells, while also having plenty of beefy haste creatures. We can do that.

    Newest best of 1 deck. I've been mining gold in constructed bo1 events on Arena with previous incarnations. It is getting more to a point of fine tuning rather than brewing now.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on Gruulggro
    Do you play Best of 1 games on Arena? I did not like Llanowar elves either for 1 game matches.

    If control is too hard, I would put Vivien Reid into the mainboard. Another option is light up the stage to try and refill your hand.

    Against control, you need to make sure to save your Growth-Chamber Guardian until the right time. Make sure it isn't going to get countered, and that you can activate it the turn it comes out. This is crucial to maintaining some cards in hand against control.

    The deck is pretty powerful. Not sure if it will break into the best decks of standard, but it has a chance.

    Play Caranage Tyrant instead of Ghalta if control is bad.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Standard)
  • posted a message on Which is a better value, paper or Arena?
    Couple of notes, they are not deleting cards after they rotate anymore. They have announced that we keep all our cards as long as Arena is running. They are working an eternal format for Arena. They have announced that there will definitely be one after the first rotation happens, just not what it is yet.

    I LOVE playing in person too. The human interaction is not to be missed. You actually don't have to miss out on that with Arena! (That is if you can get your friends into it.) My friends are all dragging their feet to play on starting an Arena account. However, you can play Arena in person, just bring your labtop and set up a player to player game. Now you have the best of both worlds. (Hopefully they'll let us set up our own draft pools someday too. That would be awesome!" This isn't feasible now as not that many Magic players are on Arena. This will change in the next year or so. I think it will be the norm. to have an Arena account by then.

    I'm never giving up paper EDH. This comparison is more for comparing standard/casual paper to standard/casual Arena.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Find linear decks.
    That is quite weird to be sure. A bit disconcerting.

    However, all of Magic is influx right now, and it's not a bad thing. Wizards does have a record of trying something out, then changing it's mind later. (Faster standard rotation, the inclusion of fetchlands in standard, et.) I doubt this will herald the end of traditional sideboard competitive paper Magic.

    I think the nice thing is, they say Arena is doing great. Bringing more people into the game and getting many more games of Magic going then ever before.

    I don't like that they have announced this change with out an assurance that traditional paper Magic will live on in the competitive realm. They are trying to push Arena hard, as they should. Are they pushing it a bit too hard right now without reassuring our traditional competitive players? Yes. They do self-correct though. I mean they announced they were phasing out Modern from competitive play and look how fast that changed due to player outcry. Though Wizards makes many mistakes, they do listen (eventually) when enough of us raise our voice.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.