Magic: The Gathering

I saw two people play MTG today at uni.

One had a majestic neckbeard, the other one a leather jacket and greasy hair.

I would have laughed if not for the fact that I was sitting around in an RPG Codex shirt.

 

Huh, I had something similar last semester. I saw guys playing and I considered talking to them, if not for one of them having the tripple whammy of hipster facial hair, a fedora and My Little Pony card sleeves.

 

Swiss is not shit, at least if you're interested in value. It is miles more cost efficient that 4-3-3-2.

 

That's a pretty stupid attitude, honestly. "I'm not good enough for 8-4's but I hate "kids" so I knowingly play an inefficient format out of perceived proper challenge"?

If anything, 4-3-3-2 probably has worse players than Swiss because it's populated by people who don't even understand the differences between the formats. I am by no means a pro, but I do not win every Swiss either, and I strongly doubt you would. The level of play on MTGO is much higher than your usual FNM anyway.

 

I find it hard to believe that you play an inferior format, willingly losing money, because you would rather want challenge than win every Swiss you play.

But hey, maybe you're made of money.

 

The best players play 8-4s. The best players draft A TON. The very best players Go Infinite. Rare-drafting is a key component of Going Infinite. See what I'm getting at?

Eh, if you have fun in 4-3-3-2 don't let me stop you, bro. Was just throwing a tip anyways.

 

No offense, dude, but you must, like, think more thoroughly when giving advises. I mean, I'm not saying you're talking shit - you're saying mostly right things here, it's just that you place them in isolation, without looking at the bigger picture. Because, in reality, 4-3-2-2s are the most profitable drafts of them all - simply because of what you've said in this quote. If we're look at the queue player auditory, we'll see:

4-3-2-2: low-skill (often extremely so) to average players
Swiss: low skill (but not as low as previously - extra practice shows its signs) to average to above average, sometimes high (these dudes usually sign there simply for the guaranteed 3 rounds of gameplay)
8-4: average to above average to high, usually with one or two sharks (meaning really high) at the table.

So, while mathematically 4-3-2-2's irredeemably lose to the other formats, in practice they're much easier to win. While I'm splitting every second 8-4 I play and 2-1 swisses on the average, with 4-3-2-2's I can go with long winstreaks, easily doing 3 or 4 finals in a row. Not to mention that you can raredraft like hell in 4-3-2-2 and still win.

And if you want some proof, this autumn I've posted some of my more interesting decks here (nickname is Itsar, the Laughing One):
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/limited-sealed-draft/draftcap-discussion?page=3

I've done that simply to share my experience with some folks, but people around there got so butthurt with my drafting style that they considered me a troll, lol.

 

Hmm, I suppose I could concede to that argument, but I don't think the degree of skill difference makes up for the lesser value. Reality proves me right: most of the infinites - at least the ones I know of - do 8-4's. If we can't trust those who literally never have to put money into MTGO, who can we trust?

Then again, you have much more experience on MODO than me, so what do I know.

 

Listen, I guaran-fucking-tee you that you gain more packs and value from the other formats. If you for some reason want to play 4-3-3-2 for your reasons then more power to you, but any advice that people should move from Swiss to 4-3-3-2 is bad.

 

*shrug*

If I can't convince you of a general truth accepted and tested by pretty much every high experience MODO player, then there's not much point in continuing.

 

wat

You are the one telling me Swiss opponents are actually worse than 4-3-3-2 (which flies in the face of every experienced player's conventional wisdom in this area). Here's a fact: you will lose single elemination matches no matter how good you are. Brian Wong, one of the best players on Magic Online, who has gone more than infinite (he produces a steady surplus), wins about 40-50% of his 8-4's. That's insane. That's possible among the highest win ratios on MTGO. And that's just half his single elimination drafts that he actually wins. It stands to reason you'll win a lot less of yours, and that's in a format that provides a very, very slim edge on Swiss value even if you do win!

Swiss grants you steady value and allows you to gain value even when you get screwed by starting hands/have a bad draft. 8-4's do not have this value but provide a very high upside for wins. 4-3-3-2 is the worst of both worlds. The only upside it has is worse opponents than the other two formats - but take a look at my response to Pope Amole II for why I do not think 4-3-3-2 pays off especially well even the terrible opponents taken into consideration. This is a subject open for discussion however, since I don't think many experienced players steadily draft 4-3-3-2.

That Swiss is more efficient than 4-3-3-2 is a mathematical fact. The only way for it to be more efficient than Swiss is if the opponents were much, much worse, but you claim they're actually better!

You yourself said I was right. You told me you knew it was an inefficient format, you were just drafting it because you were bored of Swiss. Now you've flip-flopped back and claim 4-3-3-2 is somehow efficient despite your recognition that a) it has less value than Swiss and b) according to you, it even has better opponents.

That makes no fucking sense.

 

Nah, you just misrepresent the feedback. People in 4-3-2-2 aren't that good in staying in their colors - it's on the contrary, they're so horrible at choosing the right colors and the right cards that, in general, the card pool becomes much, much deeper than it usually is - people just take too much shit in all the different colors. Much deeper for everyone, obviously, but it's just that no one around the table is usually able to exploit that unhealthy depth (besides, even if they were able to, it would instantly disappear).

That's the reason why drafting 4-3-2-2s can be quite profitable for a shark - in swiss and especially 8-4, you get really, really punished for raredrafting. Sometimes you scoop solely because of one missed pick, that's how severe it goes. In 4-3-2-2s, however, you can take all kinds of shit that you want while still remaining quite able to win that precious first round (and after that that doesn't quite matter).

Another silver lining here is that, because the players don't know wtf are they doing, you often get passed money cards - in my triple THS experience, I got 2 second pick planeswalker Xenagos, Hero's Downfall, Thoughtseize (while they were quite expensive) and, finally, a fourth pick foil Underworld Cerberus (which was like wha-a-at?). All that was rather awesome to get.

And, of course, let's not forget that in 4-3-2-2s people tend to lose to themselves (instead of opposing decks) so you get a lot of victories even when you're otherwise lethally flooded/screwed.

 

I've never said anything remotely near to that.

Yes yes, every piece of conventional wisdom on modo formats is wrong and you've invented the wheel.

I've said my piece.

 

ITT: codexers argue about what kind of mtg is more profitable instead of what is more fun.