I actually want to take a poll about this hypothetical format:-- Daily Phantom Sealed -- Entry Fee: 4 Event TicketsRules: 6 Booster Phantom Sealed. 4-Round Swiss. Players do not keep their card pool at the end of the tournament.Prize Support:12 pts: 3 Boosters and 3 QP9 pts: 1 Booster and 1 QPIf this event were offered would you consider playing it? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Go draft, young man, go draft!
Theoretical questions for all the four-booster supporters:1) Would you play if they kept four-booster sealed but added two tickets to the entry (to bring it in line with other events)?2) Would you play in non-phantom 6-booster sealed queues? (These did horribly before the invention of 4-booster, but the MTGO landscape was different back then)
The main reason 6B sealed failed in the past was because it was in it's own room. I would very seldom go to the sealed room, and when I did the Q's were never close to firing. If they put back the exact same 6B sealed in the new Limited room, I'm sure it would fire. Not as much as 4B sealed but more then before.
I think WOTC could juice things up more to boost up the popularity of the queues. Consider this option: 6-pack+2 tix entry (or 26 tix); swiss, with payout 3 packs per win. This 9/6/3 payout would still leave WOTC making 64 tix per event, more than they make now with the 4-pack queues, and right at what draft 8-4 and 321swiss net them. I think that players would be all over that queue, and the 2 tix extra cost would be happliy paid for the payout bump.
To me it looks like we have two reasonably large camps: those that want to keep the cards (I would be one of them) and those who don't butmerely want to play at a cheaper rate. WotC usually replaces an event for camp 1 with an event for camp 2. Why not have them side by side?
If you read Worth's and Lee's twitter responses it becomes very clear that what they believe was holding sealed back was to high a cost. Note they are thinking for cost in an up front sense, not taking into account the savings a good payout gives. So to that thinking the new sealed are better because the up front cost is cheaper.From their perspective, they would never want to put up a 6B sealed + 2 tix as they think the average player would see that as to expensive. This is the reason when 4B sealed was introduced there was no tix attached, to make it as cheap as possible.
I belive they think they went a little to far on the EV of these.
...but it isn't the be all/end all. I take the tweet from Worth where he said "bleh" about arguements based mostly on EV to mean that EV isn't their main consideration. I'm not insulted at all by Worth saying that - the focus shouldn't be on EV. That kind of focus would not result in the best overall bottom line; no one would play this game if they didn't enjoy it, and it is hard to exactly factor in enjoyment into EV calculations. But WOTC must factor it in to their decisions, as it is even more important than EV to their bottom line, as they make no money if no one is playing. The tough choices of what they do (as far as play options) come down to making educated guesses about how much the fun factor is worth to players for different options, and coming up with the right options/costs/payouts that maximize their net profit. They don't always make the right educated guess. Sometimes, they overestimate the importance of some factors and underestimate others. They must struggle with the fact that sometimes options cannabilize too much on each other, and fracture the play audiences too much, but they can't always forsee which options will cannablize each other. They look at feedback from the players and re-evaluate. They don't always get it right the first, second, or third time (perhaps never, leagues I'm looking at you), but they are still in business and we're still having fun. I'm not saying that EV doesn't matter, and I'm not saying that they don't ever look at it, but if they focus only on EV they are out of business within 6 months.
My theory was that Phantom Sealed isn't going to work unless it:1. Has AMAZING E.V. I'm think to the point where going 2-1 nets you a profit. OR2. Is incredibly cheap to enter. This still isn't going to draw people attached to E.V., but it should attract people who just want the tournament experience for cheap or possibly people who want to grind QPs for cheap.
I would like to voice my complaint about taking away the 4-pack sealed. I understand your point of view Wizards and I understand that mil is really strong in 4-pack sealed but that’s really only a problem when you have a lot of mill cards. I opened a M13 Jace, the one that’s 0 to mil and mil a lot, and only went 2-1 still. I really like the 4-pack format, I know it’s different for seasoned players who are used to 40 card decks but just because it’s a little different doesn’t make it bad. It’s a different way to deck build and that’s all. There is a learning curve to the difference between 4 and 6 pack but in all reality there is a learning curve for all of magic it’s self. I think the different format makes some of us a better magic player all together. I really liked the prize pay-out in 4-pack and I feel like the new phantom draft that you want to do isn’t the same. The only event that I do is the 4-pack sealed and I have come to love it as my favorite magic format I would really be upset if you stopped doing the 4-pack sealed so I would like you to reconsider. Those of us in the MTGO community who play 4-pack sealed understand the format and understand how to build decks around it. I feel that this decision will make a lot of people un-happy and while I understand that Wizards only wants to help us I think taking away some players favorite formats might be the wrong way to do it. If you still want to put the phantoms in there, there is no reason why they can’t co-exist together. So Wizards I would like you to please reconsider the decision to do away with the 4-pack sealed.
When there's a small set released, Wizards holds triple-small set drafts during the release week. I don't think Wizards does set development around this draft format. I hope the elimination of four-pack sealed isn't a sign that triple-small set drafts are going away. I like the occasional imbalanced, degenerate strategies.
Just adding my thoughts to these changes (it's all been said, but :
1) The change to monthly promo cards is disappointing. 2 cards per month, no lands... ugh.
2) Phantom events are terrible. I collect cards.
3) MOCS change is decent... except I doubt I will be playing as much as I used to, so I likely won't be qualifying for it.
4) New player events... meh I'm not a new player.
Overall, my playing has been decreasing steadily as Wizards continues to make this experience worse for players.
If they honestly wanted to give players a cheaper option for sealed, and remove the 'abnormal format' (that they believe 4 booster sealed is) we would be seeing something like:3tix entry phantom sealed swiss - 2-1-1-1 payout.As well as having a normal 6 booster (no tix) queue that pays out - 7-4-4-4-2-2-2-0That way people that want the cheap option, can do the phantom event, those that want to keep their cards, do the other one.
I will sorely miss the 4 booster sealed. I hate drafting. I will never play a phantom event. I always play all three rounds, because I love playing. Like others have posted, the daily events don't match up with my schedule most of the time. Lee Sharpe said I have other options, but what are they?To me, replacing 4 booster sealed with phantom sealed makes as much sense as offering sealed with single elimination. No one was asking for it, and most of the people playing 4 booster sealed won't enjoy it.My suggestion is to make two changes: 5 boosters (still no tix), with 40 card decks. Back when they were selling tournament packs, 5 packs were all you got. The sets had significantly more cards, with a good number of truly unplayable cards (the infamous Chimney Imp is from this time). R&D might not develop for 40 card decks from 5 boosters, but with the different quality and quantity of cards I bet it's better than it was back then. Offer this alongside the phantom experiment. I think that the overlap between the people who want to play traditional sealed with the people who want cheap limited is tiny, so they won't compete with each other.
If they honestly wanted to give players a cheaper option for sealed, and remove the 'abnormal format' (that they believe 4 booster sealed is) we would be seeing something like:3tix entry phantom sealed swiss - 2-1-1-1 payout.
First it paid out in regular boosters and had tremendous EV for players: 8*7 tickets entry gave out 12 boosters. No need to say these events were popular, resulting in dropping booster prices for ISD and DKA. Obviously this was a problem for Wizards, as no one buys those boosters in the store when you can buy them in secondary market for 3-3.25 tickets.
Without going into the rest of your post, I would like to point out that this part is logically false. 8*7 tix for 12 boosters comes out at 4.6 tix per booster, MORE than the store charges. The event effectively sells packs for more than store prices. If you can buy them secondary for 3.25, someone else has paid the difference for you. For WotC it doesn't matter who pays as long as someone does.They are fine with ppl buying for 3.25 from a bot, since it means an above average amount of packs has already been sold for 4.6. Look elsewhere for reasons they want to reduce Cube payout.
Without going into the rest of your post, I would like to point out that this part is logically false. 8*7 tix for 12 boosters comes out at 4.6 tix per booster, MORE than the store charges. The event effectively sells packs for more than store prices. If you can buy them secondary for 3.25, someone else has paid the difference for you. For WotC it doesn't matter who pays as long as someone does.They are fine with ppl buying for 3.25 from a bot, since it means an above average amount of packs has already been sold for 4.6. Look elsewhere for reasons they want to reduce Cube payout.I'm not saying Cube events had positive EV, I'm saying the negative EV of only 1 ticket per player for 2-3 hours of fun was great.Compare this to draft where the same 2-3 hours spent usually costs 4+ tickets per player.
I was specifically addressing the part "no one buys those boosters in the store when you can buy them in secondary market for 3-3.25 tickets". This is simply false. They ARE bought from WotC through the events. It is true that the event effectively causes more tix to be consumed (and thus bought) than packs, but to WotC it doesn't matter WHAT is sold; money = money.
Can someone help me figure this out: Is there any reason to keep playing on one account after you get 15 QP's if you are trying to earn 4 FOW's, or is it better to switch accounts and try to get 15 on it? Also, do people that qualify for the MOCS Finals get an extra copy, so it would be worth it to try to earn 35?Oh yeah, Getting rid of the 4 pack for Phantom is an incredibly terrible idea. Idiotic.And PLEASE get rid of the AUTO-SCROLL during big tournaments!
I've bought the cards and made a deck Now how do I win at this?
Can someone help me figure this out: Is there any reason to keep playing on one account after you get 15 QP's if you are trying to earn 4 FOW's, or is it better to switch accounts and try to get 15 on it? Also, do people that qualify for the MOCS Finals get an extra copy, so it would be worth it to try to earn 35?
The problem with the EV calculators is that they totally disregard the value of the entertainment. Many even count it as a negative ("spent X hours for terrible prizes").Look, I get EV. I'm a pretty spiky person. I average 25-30 hr/week playing live poker. I've made dozens of graphs comparing the EV of events on these boards. But EV is not the end-all, be-all in determining the value of an event, and not all decisions need to be controlled by EV.
I realized that if I could go infinite for that long (even just once), players that are better than me were probably doing similar things on a more consistant basis - and it probably wouldn't be long before WotC decided to take action. It loks like that's what were seeing now.