MTGO discussion

[Barook]

I've been witnessing people calling for leagues for years now and, I have to admit, I'm not 100% sure how leagues are actually meant to work.

Can someone explain? Is it like a free MODO-hosted tournament with no entry fee and no payouts? Like a private tournament? Why is called a league, does it have several rounds stretched out over weeks?

I never played MTGO when it was around, but they wouldn't use the same structure anyway, so that's a moot point.

What it's supposed to be: Pay entry fee, play a set number of games, league ends after a given time, prices are paid out. Basically, no waiting time between rounds and being able to jump in and out as you like it.

[Julian23]

I never played MTGO when it was around, but they wouldn't use the same structure anyway, so that's a moot point.

What it's supposed to be: Pay entry fee, play a set number of games, league ends after a given time, prices are paid out. Basically, no waiting time between rounds and being able to jump in and out as you like it.

That sounds absolutely amazing. Do you get paired against anyone or people with the same record? Because the later might lead to a longer waiting time, idk.

But if that was to come back, it would be AMAZING for streaming.

[Barook]

That sounds absolutely amazing. Do you get paired against anyone or people with the same record? Because the later might lead to a longer waiting time, idk.

But if that was to come back, it would be AMAZING for streaming.

Beta testers said that the opponents were found very quickly. Take that as a grain of salt, though.

And yes, it would be amazing - in theory. I'm sure WotC would find a way to fuck up even this simply concept.

Here are some base infos on the current form of leagues:

http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/t...ues?page=2#c27

Edit: It makes perfect sense in the context: They want to make it "easier" for people to join games, hence they introduce Play Points. Leagues in the beta paid out league points, which might be the same thing as play points. Since EV is probably going to very shitty thanks to that, they destroy DEs to make them undesirable, then cut them due to "lack of interest".

[sjmcc13]

That sounds absolutely amazing. Do you get paired against anyone or people with the same record? Because the later might lead to a longer waiting time, idk.

IIRC back in the day it was play against whoever was available. no record selection.

[sjmcc13]

Let's see if he can name 3 positive changes for Legacy since VMA happened - because I can't name a single one, but ALOT of bad ones.

Tempest Remastered had a chance to be one, but they F-ed it up

[Rune]

It's really beyond comprehension that they keep announcing leagues without ever implementing them. They shouldn't announce anything at all until they're in the final stages of development..

I think it leads back to my main issue I have with WotC -- they seem to have zero respect for their customers, and think it's okay to treat us like we're idiots.

[Phoenix Ignition]

It was a damage control announcement of an announcement. I agree with all the comments here, but it was definitely in response to tanking online prices and not any actual work getting done.

I mean, come on, how many "stay tuned for announcements soon!" announcements are ever good signs?

[Barook]

Have any Legacy DEs fired recently? The format seems dead as disco now.

Edit: Seems 70% still fire

Edit #2: A great response to that

[Pippin]

Funny thing is that Eternal big name cards are still falling hard. Black Lotus is under 90 tix atm and keeps going down with people selling out of dead formats.
On the other hand - T2 cards regained almost all monetary value. Just goes to show how redemption plays a major part in online economy...

[Julian23]

I just recalculated the numbers in the Excel spreadsheet of the big article on MTGGoldfish.

For the most interesting category, Prize Support for Daily Events at an assumption of 10 PP = 1 ticket, I arrive at a total prize support of 171. The author however arrives at just 117 which is a number I can't understand. Note that as per the authors choice, future booster packs are valued at 3.5 tickets which I think is a realistic assumption.

Can you spot an error here? Assuming 16 players and no draws, one player will 4-0 and four players will 3-1. This leads to an payout of:

4:0 => 3.5 tickets * 6 packs = 21 + 36 "tickets" (aka 360 PPs) = 57 Tickets
3:1 => 3.5 tickets * 3 packs = 10.5 + 18 "tickets (aka 180 PPs) = 28.5 Tickets

28.5 * 4 + 57 = 171 Tickets. This is especially important since by his 117 number, the author arrives at a payout of only 60.94% of the total buy-in, which is a massive rake. Whereas if you payout 171, it's at least a payout of almost 90% which seems fine.

Can someone please verify? For comparison:

Payout in the "Golden Times" (pre redemption fee increase): ~109%
Payout during the "Dark Times" (DTK + FRF payouts): ~78%
Payout under new system (according to author): ~60%
Payout under new system (according to my math): ~90%

[Whitefaces]

Beta testers said that the opponents were found very quickly. Take that as a grain of salt, though.

It's true. They tested out leagues a couple of months ago and it was great (imo). Almost enough to get me to buy back into MTGO. Hopefully they follow through with it.

[sjmcc13]

I just recalculated the numbers in the Excel spreadsheet of the big article on MTGGoldfish.

For the most interesting category, Prize Support for Daily Events at an assumption of 10 PP = 1 ticket, I arrive at a total prize support of 171. The author however arrives at just 117 which is a number I can't understand. Note that as per the authors choice, future booster packs are valued at 3.5 tickets which I can is a realistic assumption.

Can you spot an error here? Assuming 16 players and no draws, one player will 4-0 and four players will 3-1. This leads to an payout of:

4:0 => 3.5 tickets * 6 packs = 21 + 36 "tickets" (aka 360 PPs) = 57 Tickets
3:1 => 3.5 tickets * 3 packs = 10.5 + 18 "tickets (aka 180 PPs) = 28.5 Tickets

28.5 * 4 + 57 = 171 Tickets. This is especially important since by his 117 number, the author arrives at a payout of only 60.94% of the total buy-in, which is a massive rake. Whereas if you payout 171, it's at least a payout of almost 90% which seems fine.

Can someone please verify? For comparison:

Payout in the "Golden Times" (pre redemption fee increase): ~109%
Payout during the "Dark Times" (DTK + FRF payouts): ~78%
Payout under new system (according to author): ~60%
Payout under new system (according to my math): ~90

Other then there is no way 10 PP = 1 ticket your math is right.
If we place them based on the cost of entering a draft where you can enter with 140 PP OR 3 boosters and 2 tickets, then assuming 1 booster is 3.5 Tickets you get 1 PP = .089 tickets, and a return on the ticket cost of the daily of 83%

[Higgs]

As someone who's not shown the slightest interest in MODO before (therefore a total noob), how do 2-player queues work? Say, can I just dive in and play someone without paying any entry fees, tix or whatever? Also how easy it is to find people to play Vintage with?

[sjmcc13]

As someone who's not shown the slightest interest in MODO before (therefore a total noob), how do 2-player queues work? Say, can I just dive in and play someone without paying any entry fees, tix or whatever? Also how easy it is to find people to play Vintage with?

In the casual play (tournament practice) rooms, you can play against someone for free, and whoever creates a game, selects the format, so you can create a vintage match, and wait for an opponent to join, or find one waiting for an opponent and join. There are also the 2 player queues, which cost a small ammount (2 tix/20 PP IIRC) and you get a small prize (30 PP I think) for winning those matches.

[Phoenix Ignition]

As someone who's not shown the slightest interest in MODO before (therefore a total noob), how do 2-player queues work? Say, can I just dive in and play someone without paying any entry fees, tix or whatever? Also how easy it is to find people to play Vintage with?

Be warned though, if you're not paying for the 2 person queue you have a decent chance of playing someone who's bad or playing a dumb deck that you would never face in a real tournament. It gives highly skewed testing results. That said, there's always some good to be had in just goldfishing a deck.

[menace13]

These guys worked on Magic. Gratz, WotC, you've managed to drain the joy from people who loved the game enough to have attempted to make a career out of it.
Reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/co..._magic_online/

• 
  Jonathon Loucks ‏@JonLoucks 14h14 hours ago
  First MTGO draft in ~6 months. Opponent has priority for a while, I relog, opponent has won the match. Fucking great. Back into hibernation.
  13 retweets36 favoritesReply
  Retweet13
  Favorite36
  More

User Actions
Follow

Brian Wong‏@brian_LR

@JonLoucks Similarly, I hopped on for my first mtgo in 9 months. Dropped after 1 round and went back to HS.

[Barook]

I wanted to do some of my usual trading stuff, but crashed immediately after fucking logging in.

I wish e-mailing Hasbro would be easier, so people could rally to make Hasbro aware by mass-e-mailing them about the massive issues MTGO has and how the MTGO team manages to piss of the consumers with their incompetence. But you have to fucking register to e-mail them.

[jrsthethird]

In the casual play (tournament practice) rooms, you can play against someone for free, and whoever creates a game, selects the format, so you can create a vintage match, and wait for an opponent to join, or find one waiting for an opponent and join. There are also the 2 player queues, which cost a small ammount (2 tix/20 PP IIRC) and you get a small prize (30 PP I think) for winning those matches.

The 30PP prize is correct with the new system. If you lose the 2-man queue, you get 5PP back as consolation. So you earn 1.5x the entry fee and can play again for free. Lose, the next one's cheaper. If you manage to win a bunch in a row, you'll get enough points to be able to draft.

The old 2-man queues were terrible though. 2 tix to enter, winner gets a pack. Since the price of packs tanked (~1.5tix for FRF, 2.something for DTK), the payout was horrible. On paper, 2tix=$2, $4 total entry, $4 pack MSRP prize, everything is even. But especially with FRF being less than $2/2tix per pack on the market, playing a queue you LOSE even if you win the match.

I guess if you're good now, when you're testing a solid deck, you can filter out the bad decks/new brew testing and play against something that's hopefully competitive and try to pile up some Monopoly money for free drafts down the road. This is in theory, but like everything in theory on MTGO, it'll be worse.

[nevilshute]

Be warned though, if you're not paying for the 2 person queue you have a decent chance of playing someone who's bad or playing a dumb deck that you would never face in a real tournament. It gives highly skewed testing results. That said, there's always some good to be had in just goldfishing a deck.

It feels like a 50/50 chance of getting a decent-to-excellent opponent with a real deck in the 'tournament practice' which is free.

When I do end up with some muppet with a standard deck or someone with Leylines.deck or the likes, I usually just concede and queue again.

[phonics]

Consider for a moment that Magic Online has been a thing for over a decade, meaning it has taken over 10 years for Wizards to get the client to where it is now. I played in the beta, and never really dived into it because you had to invest in a second collection that you actually don't own, at least now you can sell out to stores and get something back. From that time to now, I have never heard anyone say anything good about the program ever, and I don't think it is from lack of press because I cannot think of any real positive changes that weren't triggered from backlash for their terrible management of it. Magic Online represents the relationship between the community that plays the game (in paper and online) and the developer/ manager that runs it; a brilliant game run by idiots. But the worst part of it is that people put up with all of the bullshit that continuously gets shoveled into their faces just because they want to play the game, meaning Wizards has no incentive to change anything. I can't even think of any other game period where such a broken relationship exists. I can't think of any other dev team that could consistently be so incompetent for such a long time. Again, this has been going on for over 10 years, and when I think about all of the amazing video games that have been developed, released, and had sequels released within that time, even games made by indie developers that work on it in their spare time, and then compare that to the steaming pile of shit that is the magic online client (after years and years of 'refinement' might I add), how can I possibly justify supporting any of it? The whole situation would be tragic if it wasn't such a joke instead.