SpikeBoyM's picture
By: SpikeBoyM, Alex Ullman
Oct 15 2008 5:11pm
3.6
Login to post comments
2047 views


PDC is an all player run format on Magic Online. It consists of competitive games using exclusively commons cards. Games can be found in the "/join pdc" room and events can be found on the Magic Online official message boards. For more information please visit pdcmagic.com.

My name is Alex Ullman, and I am bad at Magic.

One of the hardest things for any player is to realize that he or she is bad at Magic. This is the only way a player can improve. This is not to say that these bad players will never play well, or be the best in their area. The fact is that no player is perfect and that the only way to improve their ability is to realize every area in which he or she is lacking and actively work on improving said area.

Like I said, I am bad at Magic; specifically I am bad at PDC.

My record is not bad- I have a PDC rating that hovers around 1700. That's hardly top flight, but far from bad. My conversion rate in the finals is strong as well- 13 wins in 17 chances. However, I do not make the finals nearly as often as I play, and I do not play or practice nearly as much as I have done in the past. By my own standards, I am not where I would like to be as a player.

There are obvious holes in my game as well. I care too much about interaction. At the core, all my decks seek to win through combat and dominating the board position- they are fundamentally interactive. The decks that eschew interactivity, those that win or lose based upon their own draws, do not entice me, even when they are the right call for an event. I am stubbornly dedicated to the idea that interaction is the right call all the time. This is not the case. If I care about winning, I need to change this mental block. I need to think that, given the chance to play an interactive deck that is strong, I should take the opportunity, but sometimes the battle dictates otherwise.

I get emotionally invested in my wins and losses. I am getting better at this but still need to work on taking the emotion out of my game. This extends to my policy on the saying of “Good game.” I usually say nothing, and sometimes a “Thanks for the game.” I understand that good game has become shorthand for a variety of end of game pleasantries, but I do not feel like typing something that I know to be a lie. How many times have you felt obligated to type good game or gg even if the thoughts running through your mind are more along the lines of “I played horribly!” or “What a luck sack!”? This is my personal view on the end game, and I do not feel like lying to my opponent because of what has become an accepted term.

I need to take responsibility for my losses. They are not to luck or a bad draw or anything. My opponent might have out played me, or out drew me, or just made a better deck choice for the day. Perhaps I made a bad choice somewhere along the way or made a poor mulligan decision, or I might have simply misclicked past the win. The fact is that some of these things in my control and I can affect the change needed to erase them from my play. I can try and pick better decks and learn when it is right to mulligan. I can play tighter. Taking responsibility for your losses- examining them- could only show me how I am bad. At the same time, I should never take anything away from an opponent's hard earned victory, but I do not exist to make them better. I should focus on all my games- not just the losses- for the errors and work to purge them from my repertoire of skills.

Why am I writing about this? It is my cathartic release. I had to get this out somewhere, so I decided to turn this into an exploration of what makes me a bad player in the hope that there are those of you out there who can learn from my example. Maybe you do not have the same road blocks I have, but examine your play all the same.

There is also something liberating about realizing your own level of terribleness. Knowing where you can stumble helps you to grow- it provides a focus for the energy of improvement. Knowing what you are not also helps to define what you are. This can be an invaluable tool for a player struggling to find his or her place.

I will never be the best player- I simply do not have the drive or the time. I can, however, be a strong writer and deck designer. I know how to evaluate cards (for the most part) and this, leads me into the next part of this article. I have spent a lot of time talking about being bad. This next section is going to focus on what makes something good.

But not a player, no. Rather, this will be looking at what makes a card good in PDC. This is a topic that gets some discussion whenever a new set is about to come out, mostly as it pertains to the new cards. However, not every card always pans out and some obvious hits were missed entirely. There was actually a time when people thought that
Grim Harvest and Skred were not going to be played with any rate of regularity. Two years later, one of the best engines and one of the best removal spells are both leaving PDC Standard.

So, what makes a card worthy of discussion? Most of the time it has to do something never done before in PDC or fill a hole that certain “almost there” decks need to be viable. An example of the latter is Rip Clan Crasher. This Haste-gifted Grizzly Bears is nothing special, except it fills a hole in numerous RG aggressive decks, across all formats. RG decks tend to need strong two-drops. This card has inherent good qualities- power to cost ration, place in archetype. It is also good because of the format in which it exists. Across all of PDC there are numerous two power one drops that fit into the same decks as crasher and provide an opportunity to swing for four on turn two. If PDC lacked these strong one drops, Crasher would be good, but not as good.

Speaking of one drops,
Mudbutton Clanger is a card that I think deserves more attention. Too often it gets passed over as a one drop in aggressive red strategies, but in actuality, because of the cards around the Clanger, he is surprisingly strong. Looking across the spectrum, most good aggressive Red creatures are either Goblins, like Mudbrawler Cohort, or Warriors, like Keldon Marauders or Gathan Raiders. These are not niche cards and can easily help eke out an extra five damage a game from a Clanger. Toss in Tarfire and you have a card that, in the right deck, is perhaps the scariest one drop.

But why bring this up? Everyone knows that cards are good or bad depending on context. The problem in PDC comes in defining that context. Because of the overall reduced power level of the card pool, more cards contend for that title of Good in PDC. It is not that there are fewer limiting factors in PDC, it is just that these limits are harder to reach. Look at MUC, for an example. This deck had to run between sixteen and eighteen counters to operate at peak efficiency. That is an extreme number if you think about the deck space that takes up. Numbers like that had not been seen in paper since the days of Buehler Blue and the fight against Academy decks. The limit for Classic at a time was MUC, but to reach that limit MUC had to go to great lengths.

After rethinking the past little section, it is sounding very circular, and even worse very obvious. Cards are good when they are good, and are bad when they are bad. That is the essence of what I am trying to get across. In PDC, however, trends take a long time to develop and permeate metagames so cards can remain good for extended periods of time. It is only now, after maybe three years as the engine of RG that
Wild Mongrel may actually be the wrong two drop of choice in that deck.

Now some cards are going to be good no matter what- it is hard to beat
Lightning Bolt and Counterspell. Most of the time though, cards need a context.

Look at the exiting Standard environment: there were very few good cards. It is not that there was a reduced quality, rather the limiting threshold was low.
Mystical Teachings control was one limit, as were UR control, Harvest engine decks, White Weenie, and later Clout aggro. These were all present and created a relatively narrow strip of cards that could be good in the format. Otherwise strong cards, like Winnower Patrol were relegated to the sidelines because they lacked the ability to punch through the wall.
Again, I find myself talking in circles. There is an essence of an argument here, and it really boils down to cards are good when they are good and bad when they are bad. It is just that in pauper, sometimes the line is difficult to discern, and some cards get thrown by the wayside with little consideration.

The card that sparked this train of thought (is it train, or more like an ouroboros?) is Gift of the Gargantuan. This card has been been called a Green
Counsel of the Soratami but has had one vocal opponent on the PDC message boards. This person, who I am known to disagree with makes several very valid points about why this card is bad, including some shockingly low numbers for the number of times a player can expect to get two cards out of this spell in a sixty card deck. He goes on to say it is worse than many Blue cards of similar cost and should rarely make the cut. I get the feeling he thinks that this card is not good.

I respect his opinion and his argument. Everything he said is right.

However, if he feels that this card is not good (which was only my reading of his post- I do not intend to put thoughts in his brain), I feel that is wrong.

Gift does some things that those other Blue cards do not do- they get two very specific cards and can dig four deep. Even if you are not drawing something of use you are sifting away cards that do not matter. In the previous Standard, the late game had no room for cards like this because they were simply too weak compared to the other absurdity that was happening in those late turns. Now, the ability to potentially draw two and sift away chaff seems awfully good to me. Many predict the format to tend towards aggro, and the joke about aggro goes that as long as you keep drawing creatures and land, you should be doing okay.

In that context, this card seems to fit very well.

I think I've tried to say what I wanted to say. Alara looks very promising for PDC across all formats and I hope to discuss more cards in depth soon. Many players are complaining about the dearth of playable cards in this set. The difference is their good filter is still set on the days of dominating control. It's a new day- something good will come.

Keep slingin' commons-
-Alex

9 Comments

One Alara card that'll be popular by Felorin(Unregistered) 24.28.88.221 (not verified) at Sun, 10/19/2008 - 04:12
Felorin(Unregistered) 24.28.88.221's picture

Shards of Alara?  Two words - Executioner's Capsule.  Imagine it with Trinket Mage, and with Leonin Squire.  People will be using it in pauper events a lot, I'm pretty sure.

 

    -- Felorin

Thanks! by thepauperone at Fri, 10/17/2008 - 03:25
thepauperone's picture

Spike,

 You've done a lot to help make MTGO PDC better.  I know I have a temper but you've been patient.  It's appreciated and every game/match you bring is fun and full of interesting twists.

 Good Article!

-Tharionwind

PDC founder

Good article - I agree by Anonymous(Unregistered) 64.162.28.254 (not verified) at Fri, 10/17/2008 - 01:49
Anonymous(Unregistered) 64.162.28.254's picture

I agree with your points Spike except the bad player part.   Your decks are well designed and executed.  I do like them and the way you play.  You, atleast for me, offer good tech advice. 

 I do gl/hf and gg but I do have a temper.  I concede when some of my rush decks get clamped down even when I have a 20% or better chance of winning.  You have helped me improve my game and style.

 I appreciate what you do for the PDC Community SpikeBoyM, thank you.

Tharionwind,

Founder of PDC format - 2004.

analspikes by Monkeyass(Unregistered) 82.95.84.44 (not verified) at Thu, 10/16/2008 - 18:22
Monkeyass(Unregistered) 82.95.84.44's picture

Why are some spikes so anal about saying good luck? It's not like it changes anything as luck doesn't exist, get that through your blownup head.

by cRUMMYdUMMY at Thu, 10/16/2008 - 22:39
cRUMMYdUMMY's picture

Note:  Not referring to SpikeBoyM. 

Some Spike type players are really anal about greetings since they get so emotionally attached to losing.  It just has to do with competitive and emotionally vested the person is.  I've noticed something like 25% of PDC players are bad mannered.  The casual room has far fewer people who get upset at losing.  It's certainly much rarer in the casual room than in an average PDC tournament.  In PDC, it's something that you can expect to experience at least once every half dozen or so matches.  These people just don't understand basic etiquette.  Good Luck, Good Game are similar to hello and good bye.  Like in any sort of social interaction, it's just the basic form of greeting.  Some Spike type players and other people who may be sore losers will forget such formalities when upset.  It's unfortunate human behavior.  I've just learned the best thing to do is simply ignore them and go about your business.  They can rage to themselves.  =)

by jaknife at Thu, 10/16/2008 - 15:32
jaknife's picture

interesting article Alex, although I don't think you would fall into the category of "bad player". I think it is better said that you may feel you are a good player with some bad habits and they hinder your overall game at times. I know I consider myself to be a very average player and I can certainly relate to the idea of being too married to a particular style. I also agree that removing emotion from matches and taking loss responsibility can be two very important factors to winning. I go into every match I play believing I am going to win and should I lose that match I try to identify what occurred that led to that result. I try remove the idea that my luck or my opponent's luck has influence on the outcome and if I do what I am supposed to then it will go my way. I feel this helps me to focus on what I am doing and keeps my play errors low. I also tend to play like a robot most of the time and keep emotion out of games. focus on the play is always the most important thing to me (which is why i never chat in games beyond an opening GL) and I think that many players become much too emotionally invested in games as you point to. When I derail form these ideas I find I am much less successful in gameplay.   

by Anonymous(Unregistered) 217.10.133.193 (not verified) at Thu, 10/16/2008 - 03:37
Anonymous(Unregistered) 217.10.133.193's picture

I'm glad that you'll be saying something at the end of games now, because for a guy who says he's into interaction, I've always found you a bit taciturn, dare I say, aloof. It's good for pdc that you're more vocal in here and in the forums. I found this a very interesting read. As for Skred and GH, I think they may have initially been underated due to the general stigma of Coldsnap (which is still hated in my local area, even though Skred has made it into standard recently).

by SpikeBoyM at Thu, 10/16/2008 - 06:55
SpikeBoyM's picture

The reason I don't usually say anything in games is because I feel it is force quite often.  I am big on saying things with meaning behind them and to me, saying good luck, isn't always truthful.  A lot of the times, I don't want my opponent to have good luck- I want that for myself.  Selfish?  Yes- but I'm being honest.  Instead, I tend to say "Best of Luck" because it implies "I hope you have luck, but mine out lucks your luck."  Same as above.

As far as the end of a game, I will say good game if I felt it was a good game.  Games in which one person gets blown out, in my opinion, are not "good."  I understand that this has become shorthand, but personally, I do not agree with the meaning.  I tend to say "thanks for the game" which is a more honest response on my end.

-Alex

Nice article! by Alotrel(Unregistered) 12.182.30.6 (not verified) at Wed, 10/15/2008 - 18:35
Alotrel(Unregistered) 12.182.30.6's picture

This article says a lot of things that I've thought but have been afraid to express.  I know I'm not a good player by any means: out of 35 events listed for me in Gatherling, I've only reached the finals 3 times and haven't won a single time.  I choose decks based on what I enjoy playing instead of what is the most powerful in a meta, rarely try to discover flaws in my play, and certainly get emotionally invested in the entire experience (and nothing ruins the mood like saying "Good Game" after losing to a fluke draw).

As for arguing what cards are good and what cards are bad, it's certainly hard to look into the future and say for sure which is which. While I'm perplexed as to how people could have possibly missed Skred and Grim Harvest when Coldsnap released, I must admit that I'm still unsure as to which cards of Shards of Alara will be able to make a similar impact in the new Standard.  For all I know cards from Lorwyn and Shadowmoor will see a unexpected surge in popularity due to the new set of cards as well as the loss of the Time Spiral cards that may have inhibited them in the past.

Your article nails it on the head despite the circular argument: good cards are good, bad cards are bad.  While I can't say for certain what is good and what is bad without having seen the cards in action and what sort of metagame develops, I still take the time to speculate on cards like Gift of the Gargantuan as I feel learning how my predictions are right or wrong and what I should be looking for in the future when trying to determine good or bad cards.  I expect to make mistakes, and I ought to become at least a little better at PDC for it.

Also, thanks for defending Gift of the Gargantuan, for what it's worth.  It's not perfect, but it's not often that Green gets a potential draw-two, and I relish the opportunity to try it and see if it lives up to my expectations.