On the Methodology of Testing for Legacy

[Dragonslayer_90]

I've had this question on my mind for a while in response to a discussion I had with some friends related to legacy testing, which can also be considered more generally for constructed: In testing matches of legacy should we be playing as fast as possible like we would in real life as a way of practicing good well paced play? Or, given that testing is practice and not a sanctioned match, should we at least allow people a little extra time to think certain decisions so that we are expanding our ability to comprehend potential lines so that when we encounter difficult situations in actual tournament matches we are more able to briskly make our plays because we have thought carefully about potential lines already in testing? I imagine there is a middle ground between these two options. If there is, what do you guys imagine is the middle ground? Discuss.

EDIT: I should have mentioned that this is regarding testing with with testing partners, people you can comfortably play matches and talk about strategy with. I think in random testing on Cockatrice or playing Dailies on Modo probably best to do mostly the former, play as fast as possible, so as to be courteous to your opponents.

[Phelix]

testing is worth less, if your opponent plays incorrectly. so give that time, even takebacks.

so know that you win if the opponent misplays, isnt really valuable information

[sdematt]

Perfect practice makes perfect. Have others around you analyze plays. Figure out why you're losing games in a matchup. What cards stand out as a problems? Play some pre-board matchups, but play more post-board. Play with a local master of an archetype if you can, or multiple people who play the same deck if you cannot. Test against as many people with a deck to see how different people play it, but ideally know and understand how it SHOULD be played.

-Matt

[Baum]

I think it makes sense to practice playing faster, but only once you know the ins and outs of your deck.
A friend of mine plays Miracles and gets lots of draws in tournaments. He is comfortable with the deck but takes a long time to resolve top activiations and other stuff. So we will use a chess clock for the next practice matches.
The same applies to Lands, which also requires a fast pace to avoid draws.

Aside from that, we play slowly to find/practice the right lines. If I'm really not sure about the right play, I don't mind putting my hand face up on the table an discuss the possible plays with everyone.

[Esper3k]

For me, preparing for a big tournament is like preparing for an exam. Your practice time is for when you should explore paths you wouldn't normally take so that you can fully grasp the intricacies of your deck. If you're testing against other players, you should play with both hands revealed and everyone should be discussing the optimal plays. Theoretically, by the time you get to the big tournament time, you should have seen many of the situations (or similar ones) and it'll become more mental muscle memory for you.

[T-101]

When I'm trying a brand new deck, I like to take my time, and allow take backs for a few games. After the initial learning phase, I prefer to hold myself to no take backs. I feel that my mistakes should be painful. If that painful mistake loses me a test game, I'm more likely to remember it, and therefor less likely to make that mistake again. If I'm free to just brush off mistakes, I don't develop the good habits that I'll need to take down a tournament.

I do like sharing strategic advice during testing. If I play a Stoneforge, and the opponent chooses to not counter or kill it because I only searched up the Jitte, I'll tell them that is a common play when Batterskull is already in hand. I also appreciate hearing feedback along those same lines. Say I Green Sun up a Knight, because I've deemed a Wasteland plan is best. I like hearing stuff like, "oh, if you had searched up Gaddock Teeg, I'd just be dead."

[twndomn]

This is a loaded question, not all decks are created equal. http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/pvs-playhouse-hard-decks/

According to PV, you can't just hand a Storm, Elves, or Miracles deck to your test partner(s) and expect him to make good decisions as your practice dummy. Assume the quality of your practice partner is capable enough to make good decisions, then of course you want to play as fast as possible. This is because for a given MU, you have to test both MD and SB matches. You guys most likely will be testing multiple MUs. If you find out your SB is underwhelming, you might want to change the SB and re-test that MU's SB games. These all take time.

[Valtrix]

I think the more important part about testing is to take good notes so that your results actually matter more. Actually record numbers of games played, and maybe even write down why games went well/poorly. The problem with testing is when we just jam a games without recording results. It's good to get a feel for decks and matchups, but having the hard data is very useful in my opinion.

When you play with people you should have friendly games, to an extent. Discuss choices in game so that play is as good as possible. Obviously this is not true in all circumstances (e.g. combo vs. counterspells), but having discussions enriches testing a lot.