In your examples, both are player error. No difference, and I'm not arguing there is. I'm talking aobut things like having click lag mean that clicking on "Play first yes/no" means you mulligan to six. You cannot convince me that that mistake has anything to do with Magic skill - tha is all about learning how to work around program bugs. That's what I'm talking about.
Argument 7 is that players qualify in paper. Having the Pro Tour on MTGO would mean that they have to duplicate their investment to play. That may be easy for you - it isn't for others.
Argument 6 was that assembling decks online will cause three problems: number of trades in a short time, total supply, and negative impact on the dealers that help finance the Pro Tour.
Argument 3 is that the Pro Tour exists to get players to play in local shops and local tournaments. That is it's purpose, and it is the reason that Magic survives. MTGO is, by comparison to Magic the Paper's numbers, pretty tiny. (There are 180,000 active paper tournament players. Think there are anywhere close to that many MTGO players participating in sanctioned events? No way - I'd be surprised if MTGO has had anything close to that number unique accounts in its entire history.) Changing that risks killing Magic. BTW - the price of Baneslayers says NOTHING about Wizards profits. Wizards makes absoliutely nothing from singles sales - but that is a different article entirely. (and others have already written them - check the archives.)
I will say that the DCI's philosphy on what judges should do, and what constitutes cheating, have changed a lot since the first GP Minneapolis. The world is a bit different now, but to each his own.
I'll disagree that MTGO is a better playing environment.
I think my persective is somewhat unique. I play casual paper Magic. I play FNM and store events in the paper world, as well as playing in PTQs and GPs. I judge everything, at every level. I play a ton of MTGO, both sanctioned and unsanctioned. I live in both worlds.
I don't think either MTG or MTGO is superior - both have advantages and disadvantages. Different games.
The issue is not whether they can or can't. They can. The issue is that pros are used to getting the cards from each other and from dealers an hour before the event starts. Tha works fine in the paper world. My question is whether that could happen if the cards were digital. Could the program handle literally 5,000 trades in ten minutes?
More importantly, a lot of dealers that buy space at a Pro Tour from Wizards, and make enough money to pay Wizards for the space by selling cards. If the PT is online, a lot of those sales are gone - the only paper sales will be for public events. Wizards would have to cut prices for space, and lose revenue. Not a lot, but the Pro Tour is already a hug expense.
What about infinite combos. Imagine the old Life deck. Kors + Daru spiritualist + Worthy Cause. In paper, I can say that I make my spiritualist a 1/2001 then use worthy cause and continue with the game. Online, there's no way I can click through enough triggers, so by the time I get to 100 life, I will probably time out.
while hamtastic may or may not be mentioning gindy, I am reminded of Kibler basically being allowed to beat his semifinal opponent in austin thanks to an ignored Angel of Despair trigger. If the trigger had resolved kibler would have had no way to play his Baneslayer Angel and then would not have been able to rce for the win. Especially looking at the fact he was racing progenitus and only won at three life.
I have no interest in playing in the Pro Tour, so I can't really comment on its validity on Magic Online.
I feel very strongly that Magic Online is a much fairer and equal playing field than paper Magic.
About eight years ago I played in a Grand Prix in Minneapolis, less than a year after 9/11. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. I was nervous because it was (and still is) the biggest tournament I ever played in, so naturally, my palms were sweating like mad. I was also using old card sleeves.
As a result, in my first match, two cards stuck together and I ended up drawing an extra card by accident. I called myself on this, called the judge over, and received a game loss and moved on. In the third match I played, I accidently flipped a card from my deck, face up, while drawing a card. My opponent and I called a judge over and I received another game loss and a warning from the head judge that if I did anything else that looked like cheating I would be suspended and my DCI numbered would be revoked. Later in that round I watched another player flip over a card from his deck by accident and receive only a warning for it. I spent the rest of the tournament trying not to do anything that would get my DCI number revoked so I could continue to play in my local card shop in future events. About the only bright spot of the event was that I was able to play against a pro tour player from New York and talk to him about how New York was recovering. Still overall, it was a nightmare of an experience.
Based on this experience, I have no doubts that online is a much better playing environment. I don't like nervous mistakes being treated as cheating, and I don't like dealing with card sleeves.
I have to agree with Kriterian. A majority of your arguments lack substance and do not hold up to scrutiny. Reasons 1 and 9 are proof of that. Misclicking in MTGO is not the way you should lose, but screwing up your own play in real life IS a good way to lose? These are the same. Both are player errors. I did almost this exact same thing the other day. On Saturday I was playing in the casual room using Siesmic Assault and played my land by accident. That's not MTGO's fault. That was my fault for being dumb. Then Sunday night at our casual real life play group, I told myself to put the Badlands in my hand into play so I could tap for black, and then proceded to put the mountain in my hand into play instead. The result was I couldn't tap for black and play my Terror. Your article seems to suggest that the real life play was my fault for being stupid, and forgetting to use my Siesmic Assault was MTGO's error. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. A good carptenter never blames his tools.
Arguements 6 and 7 are basically the same. No one forces anyone to buy cards online. I have plenty of friends online that will loan me cards for tournaments. I also loan my cards to other people. That would be the socal aspect.
Arguement 8 is about playing the player and not playing the game. Yes, some aspects of magic DO involve using bluffing skills. MTGO does limit your ability to trick a player. I'm sorry, but I don't feel bad that MTGO actually forces players to be good at magic and be able to play and understand the game. Also, trying to get players to commit play errors, again, flies in the face of your #1 and #9 arguements.
Arguement #3 makes no logical sense at all. Are you implying that WOTC does not turn a profit on MTGO? I think the $48 price tag on Baneslayer Angel would disagree with that. I get the idea that it helps promote tournament attendance, but tournament attendance does not reflect card sales. You already pointed out that most pro-players DO NOT own the cards they play with. So if the tournaments are there to sell cards, and the people playing in the tournaments do not own the cards they are using in that tournament..... Sounds like a failed strategy. Just saying, if they can't convince the people who attend pro level events to buy cards, then what impact do they think that will have on people who have no interest in pro level play?
Arguement #2 is on the logicistics of trying to pull this off. This is the only real agruement you need to make. I am actually on your side here. I DO NOT believe pro-level events should be moved online. It seems unneccessary. Where's the excitement in watching someone play MTGO? I've watched friends play MTGO, it's super boring. Also, bringing computers in for just these events? That would take forever. Pro-level events already take too long. THis would add a huge burden to the system and it's one that it certainly could not handle.
If we're counting votes, I agree with you, but ONLY for reason #2. :-)
Feel free to go on and on - I'm still a lot of words ahead.
I was talking about having the PT in some fun location, and bringing all the computers and players there. Having PT Everyone's Own Home is a much worse idea.
One additional comment from Ingrid - my wife, who has attendd several more Pro Tours than I have:
"Man, can't you just imagine WOTC having to truck around all those computers? (plus spares). With that volume, it would be like a Broadway show and have to be trucks. And OMG it would be dull."
Being dull was # 14 or so on my list. :)
I have to say, though, that the pro tour was NOT altered because of a missed trigger. Gindy was DQed - according to the coverage - because he knew that the ability of his Master of the Hunt had not finished resolving, but said nothing because the error was in his favor. That's not missed trigger - that's fraud. Judges fix missed triggers.
I do see the advantages of MTGO, and I play it a lot. However, I am also involved in the logistics of large paper torunaments (planning WI States at the moment) and I can't see a way to mix the two. Not without infinite money. (But with infinite money - wow. First we hire 60 genius-level programmers to fix the collection server, then give Adrianna all the staff she needs and a time machine to fix the interface for the V3 beta, then...)
I will also say that I love the integration of MTGO into the PTs, and hope that continues. It should not be either/or - it should be both.
boros may be the hardest deck to play in this current standard, with jund being next hardest. i dont know that i could count the mistakes made in these videos, but it illustrates that while this deck is an aggro deck, it certainly is not just one you can pick up and play correctly. pt junk is a very easy match to win but you must be willing to mull bad hands and play your removal to take out important creaturs (baneslayer, emeria..., cobra) cutting linx seems like the worst plan, usually the first thing to cut are those that cant attack the turn you earthquake... as someone who basically won the cards for standard by buying a budget boros deck and grinding out 8 mans and daily's i can safely say you never want to board out the linx. against decks that like drawing lands GG is first card i cut.
if anyone wants to test against bb or the dark boros deck ive been playing my mtgousername is danielrbalderas
Wise Green and Dangerlinto said it best I think. The technical difficulties are minor and the security issues non-extant imho. Yes they are things to be considered when planning such an event but they are not obstacles, merely factors. It is not hard nor expensive to emplace effective security measures and redundant systems to ensure a smooth running of an event. Now based on past MODO experiences with major events I can see why this seems doubtful to people who have experienced those. After all WotC has an absolutely miserable record with online events. On the other hand I am certain the people in charge of the PT would ensure they made the right decisions.
I don't think the differences between MTGO and MTG from a game play stand point should be an issue. After all those differences are really just minor factors when the crux of the game is overall play skill not simply knowing when/how to play your triggers. So you trade off triggers for stops. Good players online know what stops to use and when to use them and they know about yielding priority and how to reclaim it if needed. This is freely available information and there is nothing arcane or strange about it. You don't need to be any kind of PC guru to figure MODO's "tricks" out. (That said I have been the victim of my own fumble fingeredness and the relatively unintuitive UI, so it isn't without hurdles as a learning curve.)
I believe your best argument against an online Pro Tour is simply that it loses the heroic factor. Even if the PT is physically in some place and everyone still has to schlep to get there (Sorry Mechtak this isn't likely to change) the mystique of playing paper cards against real opponents is what the PT is all about. I don't think we should lose this merely because MTGO could potentially be a better environment. And I think with the upcoming UI it could be. (Though I'll have to reserve final judgment on that for more than the previews I've seen to date.)
What I think would be interesting is to continue development of Online Events in parallel to the PT and foster online play and paper play at the same time. All those players who can't manage air flights and hotels and expensive trips to foreign cities should still have a chance to compete in a global environment imho and MTGO provides the medium for that. It needs tweaking for sure, modo is far from perfect as a large scale Tournament Holder device but it does work. (Usually.)
Kriterian a note or two about Pete: He is not elitist. He is elite. Difference. He is also attempting to make a point by using the mention of his place in the world of magic. He didn't just simply throw those references in to irritate YOU. Though I can see how it would grate on someone's nerves to be reminded of this if they were not elite themselves, and they worried about such banalities. Which to me seems irrelevant. Basically, you agreed with him but you had to comment on his tone? I find that amusing. Also when has anyone ever been entirely perfect?
I know it wasn't a busy week but I just wanted to drop a line and say great episode guys. I listen to your cast via the mtgcast feed. Your cast was the straw that broke the camel's back and got me playing online again. Keep up the good work!
Thanks everybody for the comments. First I would like to apologize for not responding earlier to the comments but I'm having a hectic week at work. To be honest, I couldn't even read the articles on puremtgo this week. I know I'm missing much (especially Marcus' and Pete's articles seems good) but as I said, I didn't had time so far :(.
Paul, I will start testing my decks tomorrow (still no time today). If you see me online tomorrow please pm me and we test.
Marcus I believe that Honor of the Pure is perfect for a more aggro strategy. If you play a deck that starts putting the opponent under pressure as soon as the game starts (with Elite Vanguard or Steppe Lynx), then Honor of the Pure is the right card. But mine is a mid range deck that first plays its mana acceleration creatures, removes unwanted cards, casts Conqueror's Pledge and only then I need something to pump my tokens. And thus I prefer Ajani Goldmane over Honor of the Pure.
boros may be the hardest deck to play in this current standard, with jund being next hardest. i dont know that i could count the mistakes made in these videos, but it illustrates that while this deck is an aggro deck, it certainly is not just one you can pick up and play correctly. pt junk is a very easy match to win but you must be willing to mull bad hands and play your removal to take out important creaturs (baneslayer, emeria..., cobra) cutting linx seems like the worst plan, usually the first thing to cut are those that cant attack the turn you earthquake... as someone who basically won the cards for standard by buying a budget boros deck and grinding out 8 mans and daily's i can safely say you never want to board out the linx. against decks that like drawing lands GG is first card i cut.
1) I agree with most of what you said. I'd like to see a pro-tour event held completely online, but I can see how the logistics and cost make it difficult to pull off. However, I just didn't like the tone of the article. It just struck me as kind of elitist, especially with the constant reminders of how awesome of a judge you are. It was valid in some places but a little to heavy handed in others.
2) You state in the middle that missing triggers, or misplays are a part of paper magic, and that catching them makes you a better player. At the end of the article you say that you can't misclick in paper magic like you can online. To me that's just another form of being a better player. Don't make misclicks and don't miss triggers.
I've been to a lot of paper events recently (just PTQs and prereleases... nothing "major") and I've heard of people colluding drafts on MTGO.. if it is quite common in little ole Utah, than I imagine it is far more widespread than I would like to believe.
There have been times I've felt like I was playing a 1 vs 100 match in draft queues online. I wouldn't want to do that in RL events. Where I'm a mediocre player in online events, I'm close to winning a PTQ in real life.
I like the article, very well thought out, but it should be noted, at least IMHO, that for every point you make here, there are equally valid points that can swing the argument the other way. Frankly, I'm not convinced that PT online would be a bad idea, just for three reasons alone. Money, time, and distance. Those of us without expendable income aren't going to find traveling someplace to play a game of magic over the course of 2 or 3 days all that positive an experience, especially when we are sent packing without being "in the money" as the poker parlance goes. The online game, however, makes a far better medium for overcoming this obstacles, and allows more people to play. One of my biggest caveats when I was playing in paper tournaments was, sometimes few participants showed up (that may have changed since then, haven't played paper since 2001). In addition, players that want to play the tournament experience oftentimes don't or won't show up at paper tournaments (I've seen on more than one occasion people getting ridiculed for bad play decisions, nerd bullies? it happens), but are more likely to prefer the anonymity of the online world. I, for one, think more participants equals more players rising up from the lower ranks to the upper echelon to enhance the Magic community. Just my two mana worth.
In favour of MTGO. I'm not advocating digital PTs, or for that matter in favour of it in any way, but if you are going to wax on about the chess clock, you might want to consider that to some people (including, I believe, the Organized Play personnel at WoTC) the chess clock is a superior form of match timing and is therefore an argument in favour of using MTGO.
I also found it odd that you felt that PT winners shouldn't be declared by something as technical as timing out but at the same time felt that losing to a forgotten Confinement trigger was OK. Diffeence? yes, but really - losing on technicalities is bad.
Also, Bill Maher is an awesome player to be sure, but I would hate to think that he won solely because the game's breadth of information is so huge that only someone super-human can keep track of it all. Highlighting that as a benefit of caveman Magic, and using it as an argument in favour of caveman magic is a black mark on acquiring and retaining competitive players.
Lastly - there is only one game of Magic. There are just different ways to play it. The comprehensive rules are not also the tournament Floor rules, and Tournament floor rules exist online as well - they are just different. Just as in PTs, floor rules trump the Magic rules.
Don't believe me?
Try timing out of a match with Platinum Angel in play. See which set of rules apply.
thye had a ptq this weekend and could not even get that right they had about 300 people and everyone didnt even get to build there deck it totaly skipped that part and everyone had to play with 140 card deck and they didnt even start the event over
To be perfectly honest, the technical issues are not what's the problem, and are generally easily overcome.
10, 9, and 8 are perfectly valid reasons, and they're why I think paper is still valuable. Losing to misclicks is, well, no different than doing something dumb in paper, so is just not an issue in my mind. I've not once had a misclick where it wasn't *really* "playing too quickly".
I'm the living antithesis of a Pro Tour player, but I agree that if a sizeable pile of moolah and fame were on the line and I lost it because of a misclick I would have a heart attack. On the spot. One of those really dramatic Fred Sanford "Oh, this is the biggest one I ever had. You hear that Elizabeth? I'm coming to join you honey" type heart attacks.
First thing, I'm glad that my article brought you back, Mr. Jahn. :)
Secondly, WiseGreen is correct. I recommended that if MTGO gets to be the medium chosen that it still takes place physically. Of course, this brings with it a whole host of new issues as well, but I still really like the idea of doing what MOCS did, or what the MTGO PTQ's have done to get people to the event.
I could go on and on about why I've suggested MTGO as an alternative, but I'll keep things brief for now. :) In regards to #1... which is worse: altering a Pro tour due to a mis-click or altering the pro tour due to a missed mandatory trigger? If one is worse for the game, which one and why?
Personally, I think that they both suck but that altering a pro tour due to a missed mandatory trigger sucks just a little worse than a mis-click. Probably not by much though. :)
OTV Match 2, wrong land played. To fetch a mountain, Scalding Tarn is the better choice, saving Arid Mesa. That I'm sure of. What I think (but don't know) is that I would have shot the Hells Thunder at him instead of playing Ranger, knowing he can't fog there. Leave red open (or arid mesa if you still had it) and unkicked Burst at his EOT. He's now at 4 and you can do that via flashback or quake, whatever you like. But then I don't know Vaults decklists well so this could easily be wrong.
Junk match 1, I didn't like that hand. You drew better than you deserve out of it and it's a touch matchup regardless. But Hellspark, Ranger, 5 land doesn't say "keep" to me.
Junk match 2, slightly better but reasonable. I do think you threw away the first Ajani though. I know you had 2, but Visionary? Tapping a land keeps him off Emeria and preserves loyalty for when she does show.
It definitely seems like a Baneslayer situation. Also I would pull Hellsparks unless I'm missing something. (Again possible.)
Valakut g2, you really think it's right to not play Terramorphic turn 1? I can't see you bolting anything, and the tapped mana could hurt later. You also had Landfall to spare, though that's just the circumstance not the odds.
There are a lot of good reasons here, but I think at least some of them don't have to do with what Hammy said. Unless I've misread his article, he wasn't speaking about a virtually played Pro-Tour, he was talking about using MTGo instead of Paper as the playing platform in a big event still held phisically somewhere in some place, with all that a Pro Tour uses to be. So although I think there are some concerns that are valid - the misclicking, leverage of skill and rules knowledge, sociability during matches (to a limited degree) - there are some which aren't because the players will be there - so judges should be able to spot cheating, the PT would still be a big event with cool posters, artists signing art and all that.
In your examples, both are player error. No difference, and I'm not arguing there is. I'm talking aobut things like having click lag mean that clicking on "Play first yes/no" means you mulligan to six. You cannot convince me that that mistake has anything to do with Magic skill - tha is all about learning how to work around program bugs. That's what I'm talking about.
Argument 7 is that players qualify in paper. Having the Pro Tour on MTGO would mean that they have to duplicate their investment to play. That may be easy for you - it isn't for others.
Argument 6 was that assembling decks online will cause three problems: number of trades in a short time, total supply, and negative impact on the dealers that help finance the Pro Tour.
Argument 3 is that the Pro Tour exists to get players to play in local shops and local tournaments. That is it's purpose, and it is the reason that Magic survives. MTGO is, by comparison to Magic the Paper's numbers, pretty tiny. (There are 180,000 active paper tournament players. Think there are anywhere close to that many MTGO players participating in sanctioned events? No way - I'd be surprised if MTGO has had anything close to that number unique accounts in its entire history.) Changing that risks killing Magic. BTW - the price of Baneslayers says NOTHING about Wizards profits. Wizards makes absoliutely nothing from singles sales - but that is a different article entirely. (and others have already written them - check the archives.)
Sorry you had a bad experience.
I will say that the DCI's philosphy on what judges should do, and what constitutes cheating, have changed a lot since the first GP Minneapolis. The world is a bit different now, but to each his own.
I'll disagree that MTGO is a better playing environment.
I think my persective is somewhat unique. I play casual paper Magic. I play FNM and store events in the paper world, as well as playing in PTQs and GPs. I judge everything, at every level. I play a ton of MTGO, both sanctioned and unsanctioned. I live in both worlds.
I don't think either MTG or MTGO is superior - both have advantages and disadvantages. Different games.
The issue is not whether they can or can't. They can. The issue is that pros are used to getting the cards from each other and from dealers an hour before the event starts. Tha works fine in the paper world. My question is whether that could happen if the cards were digital. Could the program handle literally 5,000 trades in ten minutes?
More importantly, a lot of dealers that buy space at a Pro Tour from Wizards, and make enough money to pay Wizards for the space by selling cards. If the PT is online, a lot of those sales are gone - the only paper sales will be for public events. Wizards would have to cut prices for space, and lose revenue. Not a lot, but the Pro Tour is already a hug expense.
What about infinite combos. Imagine the old Life deck. Kors + Daru spiritualist + Worthy Cause. In paper, I can say that I make my spiritualist a 1/2001 then use worthy cause and continue with the game. Online, there's no way I can click through enough triggers, so by the time I get to 100 life, I will probably time out.
while hamtastic may or may not be mentioning gindy, I am reminded of Kibler basically being allowed to beat his semifinal opponent in austin thanks to an ignored Angel of Despair trigger. If the trigger had resolved kibler would have had no way to play his Baneslayer Angel and then would not have been able to rce for the win. Especially looking at the fact he was racing progenitus and only won at three life.
I have no interest in playing in the Pro Tour, so I can't really comment on its validity on Magic Online.
I feel very strongly that Magic Online is a much fairer and equal playing field than paper Magic.
About eight years ago I played in a Grand Prix in Minneapolis, less than a year after 9/11. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. I was nervous because it was (and still is) the biggest tournament I ever played in, so naturally, my palms were sweating like mad. I was also using old card sleeves.
As a result, in my first match, two cards stuck together and I ended up drawing an extra card by accident. I called myself on this, called the judge over, and received a game loss and moved on. In the third match I played, I accidently flipped a card from my deck, face up, while drawing a card. My opponent and I called a judge over and I received another game loss and a warning from the head judge that if I did anything else that looked like cheating I would be suspended and my DCI numbered would be revoked. Later in that round I watched another player flip over a card from his deck by accident and receive only a warning for it. I spent the rest of the tournament trying not to do anything that would get my DCI number revoked so I could continue to play in my local card shop in future events. About the only bright spot of the event was that I was able to play against a pro tour player from New York and talk to him about how New York was recovering. Still overall, it was a nightmare of an experience.
Based on this experience, I have no doubts that online is a much better playing environment. I don't like nervous mistakes being treated as cheating, and I don't like dealing with card sleeves.
I have to agree with Kriterian. A majority of your arguments lack substance and do not hold up to scrutiny. Reasons 1 and 9 are proof of that. Misclicking in MTGO is not the way you should lose, but screwing up your own play in real life IS a good way to lose? These are the same. Both are player errors. I did almost this exact same thing the other day. On Saturday I was playing in the casual room using Siesmic Assault and played my land by accident. That's not MTGO's fault. That was my fault for being dumb. Then Sunday night at our casual real life play group, I told myself to put the Badlands in my hand into play so I could tap for black, and then proceded to put the mountain in my hand into play instead. The result was I couldn't tap for black and play my Terror. Your article seems to suggest that the real life play was my fault for being stupid, and forgetting to use my Siesmic Assault was MTGO's error. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. A good carptenter never blames his tools.
Arguements 6 and 7 are basically the same. No one forces anyone to buy cards online. I have plenty of friends online that will loan me cards for tournaments. I also loan my cards to other people. That would be the socal aspect.
Arguement 8 is about playing the player and not playing the game. Yes, some aspects of magic DO involve using bluffing skills. MTGO does limit your ability to trick a player. I'm sorry, but I don't feel bad that MTGO actually forces players to be good at magic and be able to play and understand the game. Also, trying to get players to commit play errors, again, flies in the face of your #1 and #9 arguements.
Arguement #3 makes no logical sense at all. Are you implying that WOTC does not turn a profit on MTGO? I think the $48 price tag on Baneslayer Angel would disagree with that. I get the idea that it helps promote tournament attendance, but tournament attendance does not reflect card sales. You already pointed out that most pro-players DO NOT own the cards they play with. So if the tournaments are there to sell cards, and the people playing in the tournaments do not own the cards they are using in that tournament..... Sounds like a failed strategy. Just saying, if they can't convince the people who attend pro level events to buy cards, then what impact do they think that will have on people who have no interest in pro level play?
Arguement #2 is on the logicistics of trying to pull this off. This is the only real agruement you need to make. I am actually on your side here. I DO NOT believe pro-level events should be moved online. It seems unneccessary. Where's the excitement in watching someone play MTGO? I've watched friends play MTGO, it's super boring. Also, bringing computers in for just these events? That would take forever. Pro-level events already take too long. THis would add a huge burden to the system and it's one that it certainly could not handle.
If we're counting votes, I agree with you, but ONLY for reason #2. :-)
Feel free to go on and on - I'm still a lot of words ahead.
I was talking about having the PT in some fun location, and bringing all the computers and players there. Having PT Everyone's Own Home is a much worse idea.
One additional comment from Ingrid - my wife, who has attendd several more Pro Tours than I have:
"Man, can't you just imagine WOTC having to truck around all those computers? (plus spares). With that volume, it would be like a Broadway show and have to be trucks. And OMG it would be dull."
Being dull was # 14 or so on my list. :)
I have to say, though, that the pro tour was NOT altered because of a missed trigger. Gindy was DQed - according to the coverage - because he knew that the ability of his Master of the Hunt had not finished resolving, but said nothing because the error was in his favor. That's not missed trigger - that's fraud. Judges fix missed triggers.
I do see the advantages of MTGO, and I play it a lot. However, I am also involved in the logistics of large paper torunaments (planning WI States at the moment) and I can't see a way to mix the two. Not without infinite money. (But with infinite money - wow. First we hire 60 genius-level programmers to fix the collection server, then give Adrianna all the staff she needs and a time machine to fix the interface for the V3 beta, then...)
I will also say that I love the integration of MTGO into the PTs, and hope that continues. It should not be either/or - it should be both.
boros may be the hardest deck to play in this current standard, with jund being next hardest. i dont know that i could count the mistakes made in these videos, but it illustrates that while this deck is an aggro deck, it certainly is not just one you can pick up and play correctly. pt junk is a very easy match to win but you must be willing to mull bad hands and play your removal to take out important creaturs (baneslayer, emeria..., cobra) cutting linx seems like the worst plan, usually the first thing to cut are those that cant attack the turn you earthquake... as someone who basically won the cards for standard by buying a budget boros deck and grinding out 8 mans and daily's i can safely say you never want to board out the linx. against decks that like drawing lands GG is first card i cut.
if anyone wants to test against bb or the dark boros deck ive been playing my mtgousername is danielrbalderas
Wise Green and Dangerlinto said it best I think. The technical difficulties are minor and the security issues non-extant imho. Yes they are things to be considered when planning such an event but they are not obstacles, merely factors. It is not hard nor expensive to emplace effective security measures and redundant systems to ensure a smooth running of an event. Now based on past MODO experiences with major events I can see why this seems doubtful to people who have experienced those. After all WotC has an absolutely miserable record with online events. On the other hand I am certain the people in charge of the PT would ensure they made the right decisions.
I don't think the differences between MTGO and MTG from a game play stand point should be an issue. After all those differences are really just minor factors when the crux of the game is overall play skill not simply knowing when/how to play your triggers. So you trade off triggers for stops. Good players online know what stops to use and when to use them and they know about yielding priority and how to reclaim it if needed. This is freely available information and there is nothing arcane or strange about it. You don't need to be any kind of PC guru to figure MODO's "tricks" out. (That said I have been the victim of my own fumble fingeredness and the relatively unintuitive UI, so it isn't without hurdles as a learning curve.)
I believe your best argument against an online Pro Tour is simply that it loses the heroic factor. Even if the PT is physically in some place and everyone still has to schlep to get there (Sorry Mechtak this isn't likely to change) the mystique of playing paper cards against real opponents is what the PT is all about. I don't think we should lose this merely because MTGO could potentially be a better environment. And I think with the upcoming UI it could be. (Though I'll have to reserve final judgment on that for more than the previews I've seen to date.)
What I think would be interesting is to continue development of Online Events in parallel to the PT and foster online play and paper play at the same time. All those players who can't manage air flights and hotels and expensive trips to foreign cities should still have a chance to compete in a global environment imho and MTGO provides the medium for that. It needs tweaking for sure, modo is far from perfect as a large scale Tournament Holder device but it does work. (Usually.)
Kriterian a note or two about Pete: He is not elitist. He is elite. Difference. He is also attempting to make a point by using the mention of his place in the world of magic. He didn't just simply throw those references in to irritate YOU. Though I can see how it would grate on someone's nerves to be reminded of this if they were not elite themselves, and they worried about such banalities. Which to me seems irrelevant. Basically, you agreed with him but you had to comment on his tone? I find that amusing. Also when has anyone ever been entirely perfect?
I know it wasn't a busy week but I just wanted to drop a line and say great episode guys. I listen to your cast via the mtgcast feed. Your cast was the straw that broke the camel's back and got me playing online again. Keep up the good work!
Thanks everybody for the comments. First I would like to apologize for not responding earlier to the comments but I'm having a hectic week at work. To be honest, I couldn't even read the articles on puremtgo this week. I know I'm missing much (especially Marcus' and Pete's articles seems good) but as I said, I didn't had time so far :(.
Paul, I will start testing my decks tomorrow (still no time today). If you see me online tomorrow please pm me and we test.
Marcus I believe that Honor of the Pure is perfect for a more aggro strategy. If you play a deck that starts putting the opponent under pressure as soon as the game starts (with Elite Vanguard or Steppe Lynx), then Honor of the Pure is the right card. But mine is a mid range deck that first plays its mana acceleration creatures, removes unwanted cards, casts Conqueror's Pledge and only then I need something to pump my tokens. And thus I prefer Ajani Goldmane over Honor of the Pure.
Thanks again for the comments.
LE
boros may be the hardest deck to play in this current standard, with jund being next hardest. i dont know that i could count the mistakes made in these videos, but it illustrates that while this deck is an aggro deck, it certainly is not just one you can pick up and play correctly. pt junk is a very easy match to win but you must be willing to mull bad hands and play your removal to take out important creaturs (baneslayer, emeria..., cobra) cutting linx seems like the worst plan, usually the first thing to cut are those that cant attack the turn you earthquake... as someone who basically won the cards for standard by buying a budget boros deck and grinding out 8 mans and daily's i can safely say you never want to board out the linx. against decks that like drawing lands GG is first card i cut.
Two things:
1) I agree with most of what you said. I'd like to see a pro-tour event held completely online, but I can see how the logistics and cost make it difficult to pull off. However, I just didn't like the tone of the article. It just struck me as kind of elitist, especially with the constant reminders of how awesome of a judge you are. It was valid in some places but a little to heavy handed in others.
2) You state in the middle that missing triggers, or misplays are a part of paper magic, and that catching them makes you a better player. At the end of the article you say that you can't misclick in paper magic like you can online. To me that's just another form of being a better player. Don't make misclicks and don't miss triggers.
I've been to a lot of paper events recently (just PTQs and prereleases... nothing "major") and I've heard of people colluding drafts on MTGO.. if it is quite common in little ole Utah, than I imagine it is far more widespread than I would like to believe.
There have been times I've felt like I was playing a 1 vs 100 match in draft queues online. I wouldn't want to do that in RL events. Where I'm a mediocre player in online events, I'm close to winning a PTQ in real life.
What are your thoughts on Honor of the Pure? I noticed that your token decks didn't include that card and it seemed to fit from my perspective?
I like the article, very well thought out, but it should be noted, at least IMHO, that for every point you make here, there are equally valid points that can swing the argument the other way. Frankly, I'm not convinced that PT online would be a bad idea, just for three reasons alone. Money, time, and distance. Those of us without expendable income aren't going to find traveling someplace to play a game of magic over the course of 2 or 3 days all that positive an experience, especially when we are sent packing without being "in the money" as the poker parlance goes. The online game, however, makes a far better medium for overcoming this obstacles, and allows more people to play. One of my biggest caveats when I was playing in paper tournaments was, sometimes few participants showed up (that may have changed since then, haven't played paper since 2001). In addition, players that want to play the tournament experience oftentimes don't or won't show up at paper tournaments (I've seen on more than one occasion people getting ridiculed for bad play decisions, nerd bullies? it happens), but are more likely to prefer the anonymity of the online world. I, for one, think more participants equals more players rising up from the lower ranks to the upper echelon to enhance the Magic community. Just my two mana worth.
In favour of MTGO. I'm not advocating digital PTs, or for that matter in favour of it in any way, but if you are going to wax on about the chess clock, you might want to consider that to some people (including, I believe, the Organized Play personnel at WoTC) the chess clock is a superior form of match timing and is therefore an argument in favour of using MTGO.
I also found it odd that you felt that PT winners shouldn't be declared by something as technical as timing out but at the same time felt that losing to a forgotten Confinement trigger was OK. Diffeence? yes, but really - losing on technicalities is bad.
Also, Bill Maher is an awesome player to be sure, but I would hate to think that he won solely because the game's breadth of information is so huge that only someone super-human can keep track of it all. Highlighting that as a benefit of caveman Magic, and using it as an argument in favour of caveman magic is a black mark on acquiring and retaining competitive players.
Lastly - there is only one game of Magic. There are just different ways to play it. The comprehensive rules are not also the tournament Floor rules, and Tournament floor rules exist online as well - they are just different. Just as in PTs, floor rules trump the Magic rules.
Don't believe me?
Try timing out of a match with Platinum Angel in play. See which set of rules apply.
thye had a ptq this weekend and could not even get that right they had about 300 people and everyone didnt even get to build there deck it totaly skipped that part and everyone had to play with 140 card deck and they didnt even start the event over
To be perfectly honest, the technical issues are not what's the problem, and are generally easily overcome.
10, 9, and 8 are perfectly valid reasons, and they're why I think paper is still valuable. Losing to misclicks is, well, no different than doing something dumb in paper, so is just not an issue in my mind. I've not once had a misclick where it wasn't *really* "playing too quickly".
Why do the pro players need to own the cards on MODO? Why can't they just borrow them from friends like in real life?
I'm the living antithesis of a Pro Tour player, but I agree that if a sizeable pile of moolah and fame were on the line and I lost it because of a misclick I would have a heart attack. On the spot. One of those really dramatic Fred Sanford "Oh, this is the biggest one I ever had. You hear that Elizabeth? I'm coming to join you honey" type heart attacks.
First thing, I'm glad that my article brought you back, Mr. Jahn. :)
Secondly, WiseGreen is correct. I recommended that if MTGO gets to be the medium chosen that it still takes place physically. Of course, this brings with it a whole host of new issues as well, but I still really like the idea of doing what MOCS did, or what the MTGO PTQ's have done to get people to the event.
I could go on and on about why I've suggested MTGO as an alternative, but I'll keep things brief for now. :) In regards to #1... which is worse: altering a Pro tour due to a mis-click or altering the pro tour due to a missed mandatory trigger? If one is worse for the game, which one and why?
Personally, I think that they both suck but that altering a pro tour due to a missed mandatory trigger sucks just a little worse than a mis-click. Probably not by much though. :)
OTV Match 2, wrong land played. To fetch a mountain, Scalding Tarn is the better choice, saving Arid Mesa. That I'm sure of. What I think (but don't know) is that I would have shot the Hells Thunder at him instead of playing Ranger, knowing he can't fog there. Leave red open (or arid mesa if you still had it) and unkicked Burst at his EOT. He's now at 4 and you can do that via flashback or quake, whatever you like. But then I don't know Vaults decklists well so this could easily be wrong.
Junk match 1, I didn't like that hand. You drew better than you deserve out of it and it's a touch matchup regardless. But Hellspark, Ranger, 5 land doesn't say "keep" to me.
Junk match 2, slightly better but reasonable. I do think you threw away the first Ajani though. I know you had 2, but Visionary? Tapping a land keeps him off Emeria and preserves loyalty for when she does show.
It definitely seems like a Baneslayer situation. Also I would pull Hellsparks unless I'm missing something. (Again possible.)
Valakut g2, you really think it's right to not play Terramorphic turn 1? I can't see you bolting anything, and the tapped mana could hurt later. You also had Landfall to spare, though that's just the circumstance not the odds.
There are a lot of good reasons here, but I think at least some of them don't have to do with what Hammy said. Unless I've misread his article, he wasn't speaking about a virtually played Pro-Tour, he was talking about using MTGo instead of Paper as the playing platform in a big event still held phisically somewhere in some place, with all that a Pro Tour uses to be. So although I think there are some concerns that are valid - the misclicking, leverage of skill and rules knowledge, sociability during matches (to a limited degree) - there are some which aren't because the players will be there - so judges should be able to spot cheating, the PT would still be a big event with cool posters, artists signing art and all that.