I think that the human interaction will be included (to a point) on MTGO. This may not happen with V3 but newer versions could support microphones or video support. I defiantly feel paper is on its way out, maybe not now but it will only be a matter of time.
I agree with the people who say that you can be competitive in this format without a $400 deck. It can't be done as cheaply as in Standard, but $100 can buy a competitive tournament deck (especially UG, GW, Elves, and red). I also agree that the money cards do not automatically make the deck good. Besides, it's not cheap to build tier 1 decks in any format other than Pauper. $200 decks are definitely not unusual in Standard or Extended. The difference is that in those formats, cards rotate out and lose value. In this format, if you invest money into lands and certain other staples, they will go in lots of decks for as long as the format exists.
Costs aside, the play difficulty of this format is pretty high, is it not? It requires a lot of card knowledge to become an expert, since 100CS has most playable cards of any format. You have a lot more options when you tutor, you are constantly seeing board positions that you have never seen before, and it's harder to guess what your opponent has in hand. Therefore, it takes longer to get good at it. If one wants to write (as some of the commentators here have) about the specific challenges involved with 100CS and how to overcome those barriers, this is just as important as the challenge of accumulating cards.
'Respectable Pros' are not exactly a good moral guideline. For example, Olivier Ruel is highly respectable, a Hall-Of-Fame inductee at the first opportunity, and twice suspended by the DCI, cheating by looking at his opponent's deck whilst shuffling. For those who follow in Mike Long's footsteps, anything you can get away with is fine.
I've skyped whilst playing, mainly in the multi room, and I have no qualms whatsoever about fostering a social environment on MTGO. Is there a difference between sitting down at a 2HG or chaos game and actually being able to talk with your partner or opponents, and having a group of players working together to win a qualifier? I'd argue the former is no different from a kitchen table game at someone's house, and the latter is usually subject to adjudication.
It's not a major impediment, it's fun. Seriously, try playing with friends on skype or in the same room, it helps your game and it's a good time for everyone involved. Every game benefits from a social environment, why is magic different?
If you're really concerned about "teams", get a team yourself. Like I said, it's not expressly forbidden unless WOTC makes specific PTQ rules. Even if you don't, the advantage is certainly not insurmountable (or even very large at all).
When did I endorse cheating? I said I sometimes play magic with friends by the computer, I don't consider it cheating either by the rules or morally when respectable pros do the same. For me, playing with friends is fun.
Some people will pay pros to play for them, and I don't care because they're the biggest losers. At most there will be 2-3 people who actually do this, and they probably won't even win and blow hundreds of dollars.
Oh there's quite a bit in the game itself. I like how the rules are always enforced and the steps and reactions are clear. There's never any ambiguity over what phase it is, or whether an effect occurred before blockers or after.
That sounds like you morally endorse breaking the rules (aka cheating) to get ahead when it is not feasible to prevent you from doing so. Doesn't that bother you at all? For me my gut kicks a bit when I consider actions like that. Having a visceral reaction to a shady plan tells me it isn't the right thing to do. I understand the spikish need to win at all costs but I can't sacrifice my integrity to do so. Even when there will be no outside consequences. That doesn't make me better than you in anyway, just different I guess.
There have been long forum debates on this subject, unfortunately lost with the community site change at Wizards. The question is one of integrity: If the integrity of the players cannot be confirmed, what does that do to the integrity of the contest? It doesn't do MTGO any favours if someone gets bootstrapped to the pro tour only to scrub out early on, whilst someone playing honestly languishes at home. I agree that it can't be stopped, but I consider this a major impediment rather than a 'just the way things are'.
Online magic is not the same as paper magic. If you qualify you should understand that you'll be playing under completely different rules at the PT itself.
I didn't say playing as a team is legal, I said it's not illegal. WOTC has clearly shown that they do not care about who's playing, as long as they're following client rules. This may change for the PTQ but for most events it's certainly the status quo.
From what I can tell, the TOS is very vague when it comes to things like this, perhaps intentionally. It's not clear whether you can ask a friend for advice, but most pros and players do it anyways. I have yet to see a banning or any punishment due to this, even when the player has publicly acknowledged it or made videos of it.
i would give ham a few days leniency since ive written an article for this site before, and waiting till thursday to do something like pricing would definitely be tough especially since josh does need some to edit i would assume.
Another note, while sharing accounts is wrong and i fully understand it unfortunately there is no true way to enforce it and if we do choose to play in the ptq we may be screwed over by it.
You are right in that it is unenforceable, but that doesn't make it legal. It would be interesting to see if people were allowed to play at San Diego the same way they qualified: If a team of people behind one account win, then seeing that team play as one would be quite the spectacle. I imagine their opponents offline would be extremely annoyed about it. How about their opponents online?
I don't think WOTC's definition of account sharing is the same as your's, because there is proof of many online players "sharing accounts" without consequence. Not only is it impossible to prove that different players share an account, but different people could be playing at the same time or merely "asking for advice" from another player. I play MTGO with friends all the time, I'm sure it gives me an edge over my normal play but I consider it part of the game. Trying to forbid and enforce that would be impossible and counterproductive.
If you want to pay someone to play for you, I say go for it because there's no way the cost/reward adds up in your favor.
It' not allowed in MTGO: Expressly forbidden in the TOS amongst other places. In paper, judges are able to enforce this, online, there's no real way of doing so. There are trips to San Diego at stake, and the higher the stakes, the more someone is likely to cast aside morality to reach them. Having someone else play for you on MTGO is the online equivalent of concealing the key card of your deck in your lap, or deliberately looking at your opponent's hand in the reflection of the sunglasses around his neck. Because the chance of enforcement is low, the chance of breaking the rules and wiping one's backside with the TOS is high. The prize is massive, the rule is almost unenforceable, so a substantial number of pros will cheat to win.
If you prepare for bomb cards, then they're not as powerful. I understand that, but they still win games even if you prepare for them. Playing lots of green creatures gives you some protection from the swords but the swords can still be a problem. They can still be equipped to a creature with flying, shadow, horsemanship, or fear and suddenly you can't block them anymore.
I think my pet peave with the synergy argument is that people use synergy to describe just about everything. Putting Wasteland in a control deck is not an example of synergy in my mind. It is an example of versatility. It is the ability to handle a number of different threats that your opponent may use against you.
Tutors and tutor targets are used heavily in this format and it's not just because they have synergy, it's because they give a deck versatility and in some cases consistency.
A random deck filled with good cards will not be that successful. However most of the good decks out there have both versatility and synergy.
To group them both concepts together and call them both synergy is annoying to me because I don't think it's very helpful for people to understand what makes a good focused deck and what makes an expensive unfocused deck.
Why not, it wouldn't be too much different then sitting across from someone.
e.g. upheaval is the nuts
Please don't stop writing them. May I ask what program or how you chart prices the way you do?
Microphones or Video support on MTGO? I hope not.
I think that the human interaction will be included (to a point) on MTGO. This may not happen with V3 but newer versions could support microphones or video support. I defiantly feel paper is on its way out, maybe not now but it will only be a matter of time.
I agree with the people who say that you can be competitive in this format without a $400 deck. It can't be done as cheaply as in Standard, but $100 can buy a competitive tournament deck (especially UG, GW, Elves, and red). I also agree that the money cards do not automatically make the deck good. Besides, it's not cheap to build tier 1 decks in any format other than Pauper. $200 decks are definitely not unusual in Standard or Extended. The difference is that in those formats, cards rotate out and lose value. In this format, if you invest money into lands and certain other staples, they will go in lots of decks for as long as the format exists.
Costs aside, the play difficulty of this format is pretty high, is it not? It requires a lot of card knowledge to become an expert, since 100CS has most playable cards of any format. You have a lot more options when you tutor, you are constantly seeing board positions that you have never seen before, and it's harder to guess what your opponent has in hand. Therefore, it takes longer to get good at it. If one wants to write (as some of the commentators here have) about the specific challenges involved with 100CS and how to overcome those barriers, this is just as important as the challenge of accumulating cards.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
i can stand med3!!!!!!!!
it happens and often ,there is a saying in certain sports .
if you're not cheating you're not trying hard enough
'Respectable Pros' are not exactly a good moral guideline. For example, Olivier Ruel is highly respectable, a Hall-Of-Fame inductee at the first opportunity, and twice suspended by the DCI, cheating by looking at his opponent's deck whilst shuffling. For those who follow in Mike Long's footsteps, anything you can get away with is fine.
I've skyped whilst playing, mainly in the multi room, and I have no qualms whatsoever about fostering a social environment on MTGO. Is there a difference between sitting down at a 2HG or chaos game and actually being able to talk with your partner or opponents, and having a group of players working together to win a qualifier? I'd argue the former is no different from a kitchen table game at someone's house, and the latter is usually subject to adjudication.
It kinda does affect casual vanguard players:
Vanguard cards will no longer have abilities, as seen by the ME3 blank avatars. :(
That means we're stuck with just the current avatars. They should've at least give them abilities just for casual players.
My favorite thing is the chess clocks. I've missed top 8 several times in paper because my opponent was slow and we drew. Online, they just lose.
It's not a major impediment, it's fun. Seriously, try playing with friends on skype or in the same room, it helps your game and it's a good time for everyone involved. Every game benefits from a social environment, why is magic different?
If you're really concerned about "teams", get a team yourself. Like I said, it's not expressly forbidden unless WOTC makes specific PTQ rules. Even if you don't, the advantage is certainly not insurmountable (or even very large at all).
When did I endorse cheating? I said I sometimes play magic with friends by the computer, I don't consider it cheating either by the rules or morally when respectable pros do the same. For me, playing with friends is fun.
Some people will pay pros to play for them, and I don't care because they're the biggest losers. At most there will be 2-3 people who actually do this, and they probably won't even win and blow hundreds of dollars.
Oh there's quite a bit in the game itself. I like how the rules are always enforced and the steps and reactions are clear. There's never any ambiguity over what phase it is, or whether an effect occurred before blockers or after.
That sounds like you morally endorse breaking the rules (aka cheating) to get ahead when it is not feasible to prevent you from doing so. Doesn't that bother you at all? For me my gut kicks a bit when I consider actions like that. Having a visceral reaction to a shady plan tells me it isn't the right thing to do. I understand the spikish need to win at all costs but I can't sacrifice my integrity to do so. Even when there will be no outside consequences. That doesn't make me better than you in anyway, just different I guess.
There have been long forum debates on this subject, unfortunately lost with the community site change at Wizards. The question is one of integrity: If the integrity of the players cannot be confirmed, what does that do to the integrity of the contest? It doesn't do MTGO any favours if someone gets bootstrapped to the pro tour only to scrub out early on, whilst someone playing honestly languishes at home. I agree that it can't be stopped, but I consider this a major impediment rather than a 'just the way things are'.
Online magic is not the same as paper magic. If you qualify you should understand that you'll be playing under completely different rules at the PT itself.
I didn't say playing as a team is legal, I said it's not illegal. WOTC has clearly shown that they do not care about who's playing, as long as they're following client rules. This may change for the PTQ but for most events it's certainly the status quo.
From what I can tell, the TOS is very vague when it comes to things like this, perhaps intentionally. It's not clear whether you can ask a friend for advice, but most pros and players do it anyways. I have yet to see a banning or any punishment due to this, even when the player has publicly acknowledged it or made videos of it.
i would give ham a few days leniency since ive written an article for this site before, and waiting till thursday to do something like pricing would definitely be tough especially since josh does need some to edit i would assume.
Another note, while sharing accounts is wrong and i fully understand it unfortunately there is no true way to enforce it and if we do choose to play in the ptq we may be screwed over by it.
You are right in that it is unenforceable, but that doesn't make it legal. It would be interesting to see if people were allowed to play at San Diego the same way they qualified: If a team of people behind one account win, then seeing that team play as one would be quite the spectacle. I imagine their opponents offline would be extremely annoyed about it. How about their opponents online?
I don't think WOTC's definition of account sharing is the same as your's, because there is proof of many online players "sharing accounts" without consequence. Not only is it impossible to prove that different players share an account, but different people could be playing at the same time or merely "asking for advice" from another player. I play MTGO with friends all the time, I'm sure it gives me an edge over my normal play but I consider it part of the game. Trying to forbid and enforce that would be impossible and counterproductive.
If you want to pay someone to play for you, I say go for it because there's no way the cost/reward adds up in your favor.
What day of the week and where do you get your prices from? Nocturnus has been at 14 on MTGOtraders since yesterday.
It' not allowed in MTGO: Expressly forbidden in the TOS amongst other places. In paper, judges are able to enforce this, online, there's no real way of doing so. There are trips to San Diego at stake, and the higher the stakes, the more someone is likely to cast aside morality to reach them. Having someone else play for you on MTGO is the online equivalent of concealing the key card of your deck in your lap, or deliberately looking at your opponent's hand in the reflection of the sunglasses around his neck. Because the chance of enforcement is low, the chance of breaking the rules and wiping one's backside with the TOS is high. The prize is massive, the rule is almost unenforceable, so a substantial number of pros will cheat to win.
If you prepare for bomb cards, then they're not as powerful. I understand that, but they still win games even if you prepare for them. Playing lots of green creatures gives you some protection from the swords but the swords can still be a problem. They can still be equipped to a creature with flying, shadow, horsemanship, or fear and suddenly you can't block them anymore.
I think my pet peave with the synergy argument is that people use synergy to describe just about everything. Putting Wasteland in a control deck is not an example of synergy in my mind. It is an example of versatility. It is the ability to handle a number of different threats that your opponent may use against you.
Tutors and tutor targets are used heavily in this format and it's not just because they have synergy, it's because they give a deck versatility and in some cases consistency.
A random deck filled with good cards will not be that successful. However most of the good decks out there have both versatility and synergy.
To group them both concepts together and call them both synergy is annoying to me because I don't think it's very helpful for people to understand what makes a good focused deck and what makes an expensive unfocused deck.
Loooove the individual card price tracking thingies. I never knew Tarmo hit over 40 tix!