[HELP] Testing for events

[Jin Gitaxias]

Dear Sourcers,

Along with a couple of friends we have decided to take MTG a bit more seriously and test to achieve a decent result at GP Lille. This means making day 2, or winning a prize at the sunday event.

The problem is that none of us have experience with playtesting other then just messing around and playing random games.
I have done a bit of research on the internet but I have not found any articles that focus on playtesting for eternal formats and I am not knowledgeable enough to separate the good advice from the bad. This is where I want your input:

-How many people is ideal? Currently we have 6-7 people that are commited to testing, this would mean 4-5 people per playtesting session since sometimes real life stuff comes up. Is this enough?

-How many people should be playing and how many should be watching?

-How do you construct a good gauntlet? I assume this means looking at the DTB section, but maybe there is more to it.

-Do you play as if facing an unknown opponent, or do you know the contents of an opponents deck? if you know the deck, do you assume it as a stock list or do you take specific cards in account?

-How do you decide criteria to cut/replace a card

-Do you take advice from the observers of the game during or after the game? Or both?

-We are all average players, so odds are that in the GP there is a significant amount of players that are just better. Is there any way to prepare for this? I mean: there will be players who know strategies/tricks with their decks that did not come up during testing, can we anticipate/prepare for this?

- How do you prevent that your testing and results become inbred?

Any useful articles you can link or additional advice you have to share would be much appreciated!

Hope to see you at the top tables in Lille,

Jin Gitaxias

[death]

1) Quality over quantity. I'd rather sit next to a "pro" or at least someone who knows the format really well than be surrounded by a bunch of idiots.
2) Know the playing field. Study the top tier decks, their sideboard and how their cards interact with yours. With this knowledge, you can construct a sideboard that not only enables you to beat them but also answer whatever they might have against you.
3) Know your deck and how to play it correctly against the tier decks. Goldfishing puts you on auto-pilot mode and you miss interactions that can come up in real matches. When you playtest, you have to take specific cards into account your opponent might have with your every move, even if you know he's playing a stock list. Not all decks are built the same.

[Richard Cheese]

http://metadeck.me

This is an awesome testing tool. Put in up to 12 decklists (can auto populate with recent top 8s), it generates proxies with all the card names and casting costs. Roll a D12, play with/against a random deck every time. Hell, print out a few different ones and spend a couple sessions just playing random matchups. IMO one of the best ways to get better against a deck is to play with it and really learn how it works.

I also agree with Death that better opponents will up your game a lot faster, but that may be outside your control. Do you have any kind of regular Legacy scene in your area? If not, consider taking to the interwebs to get one established.

[KaiSchafroth]

Death and Richard covered most but still adding my .02



-How many people is ideal? Currently we have 6-7 people that are commited to testing, this would mean 4-5 people per playtesting session since sometimes real life stuff comes up. Is this enough?

-How many people should be playing and how many should be watching?

-How do you construct a good gauntlet? I assume this means looking at the DTB section, but maybe there is more to it.


Not just about # of people but the decklists/archetypes you can represent in that testing group and how that compares to the anticipated meta. As mentioned, I'd also have fewer quality players that are capable of making/working through complex decision trees as opposed to a slew of people that just jam everything in any situation.

If there's any anticipation of the meta for that area start there. The link Richard provided is a good place to begin. Not each thread here always has the most recent list, changes or ideas updated in the first post or two and digging through it all is probably just too much.




-Do you play as if facing an unknown opponent, or do you know the contents of an opponents deck? if you know the deck, do you assume it as a stock list or do you take specific cards in account?

-How do you decide criteria to cut/replace a card


I try to start with unknown testing but at a point it can be difficult to "act like you don't know". If going into the game unknown you're usually best to assume a stock list or something close to recent highly performing lists. It might be a bit much for your testing group to try anticipating every fun-of out there for now.

Cutting/replacing (for me) goes back to things like anticipated meta but also my particular deck. If you take up SB slots for one of situations you're going to be screwed when that card(s) does nothing against a broad amount of the field. When you try to sideboard for everything; you end up sideboarding for nothing.




-Do you take advice from the observers of the game during or after the game? Or both?


Only after you've completed a set IMO. You wouldn't be getting advice mid-game during the event and you'll be better served to see your decisions through to the end instead of playing the game how someone else says you should in that spot. You don't get a sideline coach during this event.
If I'm unsure about a decision I'll often ask my testing partner afterwards to explain my line of thinking but also get their reaction (assuming they know the deck relatively well). Playing storm/other combo I'll often have people ask if countering various spells was or was not the right decision based on what they knew/the current gamestate.




-We are all average players, so odds are that in the GP there is a significant amount of players that are just better. Is there any way to prepare for this? I mean: there will be players who know strategies/tricks with their decks that did not come up during testing, can we anticipate/prepare for this?


Understanding the top decks and knowing your own is pretty much always your best tool going into an event. During games (testing or real) pay attention to each thing happening and don't just start nodding your head. Realizing a particular card is an instant vs. sorcery or interacts with something in the deck a particular way is vital.




- How do you prevent that your testing and results become inbred?

Any useful articles you can link or additional advice you have to share would be much appreciated!


Change things up and make sure you're testing both with AND against decks. If the same guy keeps playing the same deck you begin to evaluate that deck/archetype based strictly on his playstyle and decisions.

[btm10]

-How many people is ideal? Currently we have 6-7 people that are commited to testing, this would mean 4-5 people per playtesting session since sometimes real life stuff comes up. Is this enough? -How many people should be playing and how many should be watching?

Probably. I'd strive to have an odd number of people in each testing session so that one person always has perfect information about the game(s) and can note specific decision points that may not have occurred to someone playing. The postgame discussion of decision making in testing is at least as important as the games themselves, and arguably more important. You can argue for having two observers, one on each deck, but I've found that is more likely to lead to "backseat piloting".



-How do you construct a good gauntlet? I assume this means looking at the DTB section, but maybe there is more to it.


I'd use the DTB section and TC decks as guides, but I'd also be sure to cover your bases. If you get a lot of matches against Miracles at locals but no one there is playing Elves/BUG Delver/RUG Delver/Stoneblade/whatever, maybe you only playtest the Miracles matchup 2-3 games and dedicate more time to decks you don't see often. I'd also be sure to test the matchups you're most afraid of even if they're against fringe decks like Painter. Knowing how to navigate a bad matchup can be important for a lot of decks because sometimes your opponent stumbles, or sometimes you have a stronger draw than them, or any number of other things can happen and put you ahead, but only if you recognize what playing to your outs looks like in practice.

[Phelix]

I like to play 60% of the games w. sideboard.

pretty fast ive narrowed stuff down to very few decks i wanna play, then its about fixing builds and boards, and more specific testing of those cards.

I write down all results, and versions of decks.

I fucking love stats.



Also make sure to all agree if you are trying to find a "best deck" or optimal builds for whatever you are all goin to play.

[thecrav]

http://metadeck.me

This is an awesome testing tool. Put in up to 12 decklists (can auto populate with recent top 8s), it generates proxies with all the card names and casting costs. Roll a D12, play with/against a random deck every time. Hell, print out a few different ones and spend a couple sessions just playing random matchups. IMO one of the best ways to get better against a deck is to play with it and really learn how it works.

To make things extra difficult, in the past, I've created a similar proxy deck and then told the opponent to not decide on which deck to play until they make mulligan decisions. This way, their hand is likely stronger than usual. This doesn't represent real life, but it represents the harder matches you'll play.


I like to play 60% of the games w. sideboard.

Yup. At least 50% of your games will be with sideboards. If you feel like you've got game 1 locked down (or if you feel like it's hopeless), I think it's fine to even all-but-skip the pre-board testing.

[amalek0]

As a general testing procedure for modern (and multiple people in my group have t16'd in the last couple of elite IQ's), we begin by building a gauntlet, usually stock mainboards, and run game 1's--2-3 1v1 hidden information with at least one observer, and then afterwards 5-6 played completely open handed, but with group discussion and consensus about each turn for each player and what the correct or optimal moves are, and we make sure to discuss what the hidden information is from each "player" perspective. Doing games this way can take more than an hour per game, so it's very time consuming, but it leads to thorough understanding of what matters in each matchup for each deck. Note that it is most helpful to have someone experienced in playing each deck you test this way so you have a good starting point and a "voice of reason" for it.

Second step is to then examine stock sideboards, and have a discussion about what you believe the typical sideboards to contain and what is relevant to the matchup at hand, and then identify how we most expect the (opposing) deck to be positioned post board, and then run (first) mainboard games against the sideboarded configuration, (in the same manner as with preboard). From there, we discuss how we could reposition to beat the (opposing) post board configuration, and possible sideboard cards for that. We come up with a configuration that has a reasonable matchup against our (opposing) post board configuration, and then repeat for every deck in the gauntlet. We then take all of the sideboard configurations and figure out what we expect the metagame to look like and make our cuts down to about a 30 card sideboard, then re-run the gauntlet more quickly until we narrow down to the specific 15 cards we want in the board. In this second run-through, we re-determine what we want to do for sideboarding against the decks in the gauntlet.

As a note on this, we always ensure we try to select more general sideboard hate instead of targeted hate unless the metagame/matchup is deserving of very individually targeted slots.

[Richard Cheese]

As a general testing procedure for modern (and multiple people in my group have t16'd in the last couple of elite IQ's), we begin by building a gauntlet, usually stock mainboards, and run game 1's--2-3 1v1 hidden information with at least one observer, and then afterwards 5-6 played completely open handed, but with group discussion and consensus about each turn for each player and what the correct or optimal moves are, and we make sure to discuss what the hidden information is from each "player" perspective. Doing games this way can take more than an hour per game, so it's very time consuming, but it leads to thorough understanding of what matters in each matchup for each deck. Note that it is most helpful to have someone experienced in playing each deck you test this way so you have a good starting point and a "voice of reason" for it.

Second step is to then examine stock sideboards, and have a discussion about what you believe the typical sideboards to contain and what is relevant to the matchup at hand, and then identify how we most expect the (opposing) deck to be positioned post board, and then run (first) mainboard games against the sideboarded configuration, (in the same manner as with preboard). From there, we discuss how we could reposition to beat the (opposing) post board configuration, and possible sideboard cards for that. We come up with a configuration that has a reasonable matchup against our (opposing) post board configuration, and then repeat for every deck in the gauntlet. We then take all of the sideboard configurations and figure out what we expect the metagame to look like and make our cuts down to about a 30 card sideboard, then re-run the gauntlet more quickly until we narrow down to the specific 15 cards we want in the board. In this second run-through, we re-determine what we want to do for sideboarding against the decks in the gauntlet.

As a note on this, we always ensure we try to select more general sideboard hate instead of targeted hate unless the metagame/matchup is deserving of very individually targeted slots.

This sounds amazingly thorough. How many people are in this group, and how long would this whole procedure take? Do you split up pre-board and boarded games across multiple days of testing?