MTGA has a ton of variance, it rules the game and impacts everything. I think about 20% of my draft games are won or lost mainly by luck with myself or my opponent being mana screwed or mana flooded and the rest are decided by who drafted and played better. In draft you have conniving, aka looting, scry'ing, multicolor lands that can be sacrificed to draw a card, playing 2 colors instead of 3 and more that you can do to minimize the amount of randomness. Suddenly the odds of drawing too many lands, too few lands or the wrong color drop dramatically. Like instead of building a deck with 12 basic lands of each color and blaming luck when you don't draw the right amount of each color you build a deck with multicolor lands, lands that can be spells, spells than can be lands, lands that can be creatures. The thing about magic is that you can't always out-play the luck factor in a particular game but knowing the odds, building decks to minimize randomness, playing to your outs even though there may only be a 5% chance you draw the card you need to win, does pay off over the long term. ![]() I suppose maybe that's partly self inflicted from me sometimes playing off-meta or tier 2 constructed decks when technically I should just be playing mono white aggro in bo1 or esper midrange in bo3 or something if I wanted to maximize my constructed win rate. I know without 4 copies of stuff there is perhaps more randomness in draft but over the long term I feel like my win rate in draft is actually higher than constructed. I personally think draft is the most skill rewarding format because you have to draft and build the deck skillfully on top of playing it well. The game rewards skill a lot, but the matchmaker tends to pair you against more skilled opponents the more you win to try and keep everyone's win rates at 50% (same as almost every pvp game). There are skill opportunities in deciding which removal to use (sometimes using ] rather than ] on ] in the aforementioned Greasefang matchup isn't exactly a tough choice, although playing Cast Down in Explorer is definitely a low-skill deckbuilding decision). 'Threat -> removal' is rarely an actual decision, especially in a high-powered format. You had a lengthy back-and forth, threats trading for answers, both decks firing on all cylinders? Well then you each have the lose-bomb that is three consecutive land draws, and one of you shuffled that bomb higher up than the other. They drew T3 Greasefang and you didn't draw one of your answers? Well, shrug. Even aside from the maybe 40% of games that are decided by the mana system, plenty more games are still determined when the decks are shuffled. I feel like its impact is underestimated. Too difficult.ĭeckbuilding - 75% (optional) Play: 5-10% (depending on deck) Luck: 15-20% 'Here's six sets, what's the strongest deck' is a hard question. ![]() ![]() If they build anything, it will probably be to default to a preferred style or to build around something that appeals to them. On the other hand, if you give an experienced player a format and ask them to devise an optimal deck within that format, most will be completely lost. ![]() The question is 'do you have it', which is a combination of the other two things. Pros will typically agree on plays, because they're mostly not big decision points. More or less any experienced player can look at a typical board and figure out the optimal line of play, or something close to it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |