|
Sleep of Bronze posted:That seems unusually definitive for an answer about a future set. I don't trust it.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Lancelot posted:Haven't they already said a bunch of times that Khans is a wedge set but not a wedge block? It's also that I'm doubtful that they'll 100% throw away the wedges after only letting us see them for a short time. I expect there to be some wedge presence still, even if the sets don't focus enough on the theme to count as 'wedge sets'. We've already seen a minor Temur presence in FRF, for example, where the wedge is interpreted by their Khan as G with R/U hybrid. Obviously we don't know how the set around that looks yet, but I'm expecting there to be similar sorts of things in the rest of FRF and in DTK. (Watch me be wrong.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Lancelot posted:Haven't they already said a bunch of times that Khans is a wedge set but not a wedge block? Yes, but "DTK is not a wedge set" is a much weaker statement than "DTK contains exactly zero wedge-related cards". Avacyn Restored still had vampires and zombies. e: I think they've said it was a mistake that Zendikar block, which followed Alara block, contained almost no multicolored cards at all, and that Theros deliberately had a bit of extra multicolor support because it was following Ravnica. It makes sense that DTK isn't also a wedge set, but it would be jarring for wedges to immediately vanish entirely (though they might do that deliberately to fit the time-travel history rewriting storyline stuff). Lottery of Babylon fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Yes, but "DTK is not a wedge set" is a much weaker statement than "DTK contains exactly zero wedge-related cards". Avacyn Restored still had vampires and zombies. If they use two-colour cards, there are still cards that fit in the clan wedges without there directly being any wedge cards. That'd be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Prism posted:If they use two-colour cards, there are still cards that fit in the clan wedges without there directly being any wedge cards. That'd be my guess. My bet is that specifically, DTK will be a hybrid set, thus providing Fate Reforged with a mechanical connection to whichever large set it's drafted with. Of course, there's not enough of a sample size yet to tell how big of a thing hybrid activation costs will actually be in Fate Reforged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Oh God. 14 hours later I went 6-2-1 at the SAGP and missed the cut by 2 points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Oh God. 14 hours later I went 6-2-1 at the SAGP and missed the cut by 2 points. Then maybe you should play faster and stop making all of us wait?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Hellsau posted:Then maybe you should play faster and stop making all of us wait? Wait what did he play? Was it U/B Control? I bet it was U/B Control. Actual Scum Alert.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:Wait what did he play? Could have just been Abzan, and it was a mirror match that just went long. Still, drawing on day 1 is really bad and you should avoid it at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
I was playing Sidisi Whip against the guy who won the Salt Lake City GP. He was playing GR Devotion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Random reminder: If you know you'll be attending GP Baltimore, today is the last day to pre-register for $50. Starting December 1st the price goes up to $60 for reasons. Even further, Card Titan is increasing the price of registration and the Sleep in Special, but not the VIP package. I can't tell if this is a brilliant marketing plan to get more people to buy the VIP (which is a pretty good deal as it stands) or what. http://www.gpbaltimore.com/
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
So the final standings for day one are up, I got 137th and needed to be in the top 128 even though I had as many points as multiple people who had a bunch of byes and got free 2-0 wins. Oh well. I enjoyed my day of playing and hate the closest I have gotten to a day 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:So the final standings for day one are up, I got 137th and needed to be in the top 128 even though I had as many points as multiple people who had a bunch of byes and got free 2-0 wins. It's not top 128, it's X-2 or better (rather, it's whichever of those is more players).
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Pussy Snorkel posted:It's not top 128, it's X-2 or better (rather, it's whichever of those is more players). We had over 1000 people. So it was top 128 or x-2 whichever was greater. 128 was greater.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:So the final standings for day one are up, I got 137th and needed to be in the top 128 even though I had as many points as multiple people who had a bunch of byes and got free 2-0 wins. Byes are actually better for your tiebreakers than winning 2-0 for the first two rounds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
qbert posted:Byes are actually better for your tiebreakers than winning 2-0 for the first two rounds. Yeah I noticed that. Which is kind of dumb but whatever. I looked over the tiebreaker math when I saw the final cut.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Errant Gin Monks posted:Yeah I noticed that. Which is kind of dumb but whatever. I looked over the tiebreaker math when I saw the final cut. Yeah it just works out that way because the first tiebreaker is Opponent Win Percentage, and opponents you beat in the first 2 rounds of a GP tend to end up with relatively low win percentages, bringing your entire average down. People with byes only have OWPs calculated from Round 3 opponents and up, meaning even their crappiest performing opponents at least got 2 wins that day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
qbert posted:Yeah it just works out that way because the first tiebreaker is Opponent Win Percentage, and opponents you beat in the first 2 rounds of a GP tend to end up with relatively low win percentages, bringing your entire average down. People with byes only have OWPs calculated from Round 3 opponents and up, meaning even their crappiest performing opponents at least got 2 wins that day. I guess what bothers me is that I had to play through 9 rounds, had the same win percentage, but because I actually played all rounds I'm penalized for the people I beat early dropping or having a lovely win%. I get that byes are basically a bonus of doing a good job and earning them but it kind of sucks for those of us that grind the whole day and some dude with 3 byes only had to play 6 rounds, tie my score and beat me with OMW% So not having to play is better then actually playing and winning and that's stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
They played better at the GPTs you didn't win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
There's a problem with a tournament system where people who play more on the day of the tournament are punished for it. Why should a hall of famer, someone who ground byes, won a GPT, etc, systematically get an advantage on the day of the tournament with a 4-2 record than someone who goes 7-2? Isn't playing only 6 rounds instead of 9 an advantage enough? Why should somebody who played better that day (77% wins over 9 rounds on the day versus 67% over 6) have less of a chance of going to day 2?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Kabanaw posted:There's a problem with a tournament system where people who play more on the day of the tournament are punished for it. Why should a hall of famer, someone who ground byes, won a GPT, etc, systematically get an advantage on the day of the tournament with a 4-2 record than someone who goes 7-2? Isn't playing only 6 rounds instead of 9 an advantage enough? Why should somebody who played better that day (77% wins over 9 rounds on the day versus 67% over 6) have less of a chance of going to day 2? They reward people who consistently do well. I know as a viewer I'd rather see Tom Ross or someone else I know play magic, than have 8 no-names in the top eight every week. And in unrelated news, this is a lot of hornets. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
What are the Victreebels for?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Presumably they ran out of hornet tokens in the feature match area and he was using those for when he wasn't featured.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
The problems with magic system of tournament byes is why I prefer the x-wing system. There's a maximum of 1 round bye from a tournament to another one tier above it - local, regionals, Nationals, worlds. Of these byes the margin of victory awarded is only 50% which is a respectable finish but allows people who actually played games to finish higher. Funny enough, even with this system the world champion is the same person from last year. You don't need to award handjob byes to "known pro wizard battle" names lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:09
|
|
Kabanaw posted:There's a problem with a tournament system where people who play more on the day of the tournament are punished for it. Why should a hall of famer, someone who ground byes, won a GPT, etc, systematically get an advantage on the day of the tournament with a 4-2 record than someone who goes 7-2? Isn't playing only 6 rounds instead of 9 an advantage enough? Why should somebody who played better that day (77% wins over 9 rounds on the day versus 67% over 6) have less of a chance of going to day 2? They don't. 7-2 at 21 points is a lock for Day 2, regardless of the size of the GP. It's the alternate determination that I assume is relevant for GP San Antonio (when all the 7-2s and above add up to less than 128 people, thus letting the 20, 19, and 18 pointers into Day 2).
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Devor posted:They reward people who consistently do well. I know as a viewer I'd rather see Tom Ross or someone else I know play magic, than have 8 no-names in the top eight every week. Don't they reward players who consistently do well with the pro tour and other stuff like byes at every GP and payment for showing up? GPs aren't invite only, anybody can join and shouldn't be punished because they're not as active in the tournament scene. AnacondaHL posted:They don't. 7-2 at 21 points is a lock for Day 2, regardless of the size of the GP. Right, but in that case people with 3 byes would have a 3-3 record and people with none would have a 6-3. Being able to automatically win 3 rounds is already an insanely big advantage and giving people who started the marathon at the 8 mile mark the tiebreaker sucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
"I do this for a living, and I cannot win without my automatic handicap for every wizard battle" -a grand wizard
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
These abzan and sultai decks are tiresome
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
This is worse than watching legacy or vintage
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Soul of Theros is better than Ajani at gaining 100 life. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
This is probably the worst part of the current standard. And I love the current standard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:Soul of Theros is better than Ajani at gaining 100 life. Only against durdly decks with hardly any removal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:"I do this for a living, and I cannot win without my automatic handicap for every wizard battle" "Harold McNeil is my favorite Magic Card artist." -a Grand Wizard
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
notbrant posted:This is worse than watching legacy or vintage But, watching Legacy is the best. Madmarker posted:"Harold McNeil is my favorite Magic Card artist." 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Devor posted:They reward people who consistently do well. I know as a viewer I'd rather see Tom Ross or someone else I know play magic, than have 8 no-names in the top eight every week. Ahahahaha I don't give a poo poo who you want to WATCH play magic. I want to actually play magic. And I had a decent chance of going to day 2 had the tie breakers not favored the pros and semi-pros.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Well that, and if they got to the top 8 regularly they wouldn't be no-names. I think the current policy is fine, but that's a dumb argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:24
|
|
Kabanaw posted:Right, but in that case people with 3 byes would have a 3-3 record and people with none would have a 6-3. Being able to automatically win 3 rounds is already an insanely big advantage and giving people who started the marathon at the 8 mile mark the tiebreaker sucks. I'd argue that being in the top ~150 of the best MTG players in the world just to qualify for 3 byes is a pretty insane advantage already.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Um, the entire point of a bye is for it to be a reward for playing well. If byes were worse than regular wins then there would be no point whatsoever to giving them out. I think it's fair if you want to argue against byes as a reward at all, but arguing against them being at least as good as a regular win is pretty bizarre because then they would be a totally pointless reward in general. I know I would be utterly furious if by taking my earned reward I was penalized compared to others who didn't earn the same reward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
I Love You! posted:Um, the entire point of a bye is for it to be a reward for playing well. If byes were worse than regular wins then there would be no point whatsoever to giving them out. I think it's fair if you want to argue against byes as a reward at all, but arguing against them being at least as good as a regular win is pretty bizarre because then they would be a totally pointless reward in general. I don't see it as a penalty to not get every advantage from a bye. Let's see, you don't have to show up at 8 in the morning, you don't have to play 3 extra rounds you get an automatic 3-0 start and aren't nearly as mentally wiped out as the rest of us towards the end of the tournament. If they have a 50% OMW for byes that would be more fair. At that point you can choose to take them or to actually play. But it wouldn't be an automatic win/win tiebreaker scenario. Edit: lets put it this way, they were testing new software for the first 4 rounds. I went 3-1. I The first four rounds were from 9-3pm, it took that long to play those rounds. Brandon Nelson, the guy I drew with, got there at 2 and played his first game in round 4. He got there 6 hours after I did and was fresh for the final rounds. That's already a huge advantage. Errant Gin Monks fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
I think it's awesome that people complain about how they worked harder than someone who won a whole other tournament to get a bye. You didn't. You lost out to someone who played MORE games to get that bye.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 18:52
|
|
