Community

Results oriented thinking asks the question "What has happened?" and then applies it to "What will happen."

This is a fine question. But it should be the question asked when the situation you are trying to reach an understanding of is too abstract for you to comprehend through conventional means. Such a line of thinking is very useful in Magic because there are a lot of abstracts and unknowns. You are playing against a human opponent which you don't know the nature of, every card has a complex type of impact that is hard to understand in the game as a whole, etc.

Results oriented thinking can be used to test the power of decks against each other if you think the players on both sides are technically competent. You would have them play a large portion of games, then look at wins and losses. Results oriented thinking can be used to get an idea of the power of cards in a certain format in certain decks too, just do simple AB testing.

However some situations we can deabstract, and in those situations it is a bad idea to use results oriented thinking. I will give an example.

A purely results oriented thinker given a coin will flip the coin over and over again until they are satisfied with their experiment's consistancy and determine the probability of a coin landing on heads that way. This is both a lengthy process and can give you the wrong results easily. Someone who thinks about the function of the coin, or how it operates, will see that the coin has a 50% chance of landing on heads.

When a person is deciding what creature is best to Lightning Bolt against a certain deck they could go the results oriented route or the functionality route. The results oriented player would test using the lightning bolt on earlier creatures and test holding on to it. The functional player would analyze the probability of facing a threat more crucial to the game. A result's oriented thinker is prone to change their mind, a functional thinker knows the "best choice" from the very beginning. Also it is a very hard situation for a results oriented player to comprehend because every game has a different battlefield and hand state. I think functional thinking is better here, because the results of taking different actions can be analyzed fairly easily. Results oriented thinking is good for analyzing how other players are playing, like understanding when people make bluffs and such, because the human element is incredibly abstract.

To go back to the earlier problem of testing decks where I said result oriented thinking was the way to go. It is a good way to test decks, but it can't be used to come up with new decks and card choices. You simply don't have the time. So you must use some functional reasoning here. 

Jul 4, 2012 -- 5:59PM, silentbobus wrote:

That is interesting, because the best deck I ever made was just results oriented testing against various decks my friend made up. Over and over again, adding and subtracting cards, until none of the decks my friend could make up had more than a 20% chance of beating my deck. I always assumed that would allow you to come up with the best decks, but once they changed around the tournament rules, such that you had to switch up decks often, it didn't seem as useful to build that one, unbeatable deck.

How did you decide what cards to put in? Did you test cards like Pillarfield Ox ?

Another problem with results oriented thinking is that it will never answer the questions "why" and "how". Now that only matters if you care, but in my opinion you should since you can apply your knowledge to new situations, which you simply couldn't do with results oriented thinking.

A couple things.

To me, ROT would be like saying, I did well in an AVR draft when I played Grounded , so that must be why I did well.  So you continue to play it, or even play it more.  Or conversely, saying, I really got smoked when I played Mist Raven , I better not draft that card again!  I don't know anyone on the forums who does that. 

As for Talrand, he's going to remind me of Delver of Secrets in limited, which I always thought was just bad, because it was hard to get the proper number if instants/sorceries to make him effective.  Same might be true for Talrand, who may end up being more of an overcosted 2/2 in many cases. 

Jul 4, 2012 -- 6:56PM, catowner wrote:

Can we please get back on topic?

Thoughts on what the best commons will be?

Mine:
white:  pacifism (removal = good)
blue:   encrust (removal = good)
red:  searing spear (removal = good)
green:  sentinel spider (4/4s for 5 are never bad.  Giving them vigilance and reach makes them very good for shutting down the enemy offense and starting your own)
black:  murder (removal) 

If you want to go removal for all of them, Prey Upon is typically removal against any non-green color. Alternatively, Deadly Recluse is quite close as well. In terms of best green common however, Timberpack Wolf seems pretty insane, a relentless rat with 1 more toughness, 1 less CMC, printed at common. Worst case scenario you have a bear, best case you've got 4 5/5s by turn 4.

As for blue, Encrust is not removal, as it does not tap the creature initially. Best to stay away from blue entirely in this set, you'll see when the draft statistics come in.

I don't feel like injecting myself into any of the debates going on here, but I had some free time so I figured I'd throw out my analysis of the set.


My initial rankings are as follows:

1. Black - Its creature base is lacking somewhat especially evasion, but its removal is in my opinion best of the set, it also has lots of efficiency going for it.
2. Red - Second best in removal, Solid creature base, relatively efficient with some decent flyers.
3. White - About what you'd expect in white, some solid bodies, solid removal, and some of the best bombs.
4. Blue - I think its removal is better than normal, especially its counter magic. But switcheroo is no mind control, which really hurts.
5. Green - Mostly stuff we've seen before, and only rancor and prey upon really seems like a good non-rare reprint for green. Just overall disappointing to me for limited purposes.

My favorite new Non-rares in the set for limited:

Timberpack Wolf - A bear/rat hybrid that only affects yours? Sign me up.
Ranger's Path - Effectively 2 rampant growths in 1 card, even without giving fixing I'm playing this if I'm green.
Fungal Sprouting - If you can manage a couple of these with the new overrun, you should win some games
Flames of the firebrand - These will be first picked a lot obviously.
Reckless Brute - All he has to do is hit once and trade with something next turn, which he should do more often than not.
Chandra's Fury - 5 mana is a lot, but the value is definitely there, especially at instant speed.
Vile Rebirth - A 2/2 for 1 at instant speed that has some utility in a color with plenty of removal. Will be most fun when played in response to someone else's cast of it.
Murder - These will be first picked a lot obviously.
Liliana's Shade - Looming shade was playable, this costs a B more and gives a swamp pretty solid.
Mind Sculpt - A play set of these is lethal to a 40 card deck on turn 5(assuming no mulligans).
Arctic Aven - I think this one has been pretty well covered
Talrand's Invocation - 4 flying power for 4 mana on 2 bodies, well worth it.
Ajani's Sunstriker - A very solid bear.
Attended Knight - A poor man's blade splicer at common.
Healer of the Pride - Lifegain that I think can come close to the level of Fangren Marauder , unfortunately not nearly as strong a body though.


Cards that I think will be drafted earlier than they should:

Pretty much any non-rare/mythic with exalted - Almost no hexproof and lots of instant speed removal make it an unreliable strategy
Battleflight Eagle - If it had haste or flash I would be fine with it, as it stands its a 2/2 flier for 5 with a marginal etb
War Falcon - it looks really really good, but I don't like that there are only three 2-drops that activate it, only 1 thats common, and it doesn't seem that relevant if its not swinging in until turn 3 or 4
Augur of Bolas - Reminds me of delver, who as I recall was pretty bad in limited because good limited decks usually don't play more than 5 instants or sorceries so his etb will miss more often than not. It could see some use in mill decks or very dedicated control, but its more important to be picking up mind sculpts and removal cards first.
Switcheroo - Requires having creatures in the first place, and can be countered by killing the target you control effectively 2 for 1ing. A farcry from mind control.
Tricks of the Trade - If your opponent doesn't have removal this will work out amazingly, but its still an aura in a removal heavy set.
Mark of the Vampire - See above
Veilborn Ghoul - Its strong don't get me wrong, but not being able to block holds this thing back significantly more than people will realize initially.
Blood reckoning - I just plain don't like the effect at the cost, and will likely never play it, even if I get it.
Cleaver Riot - The set has fog and safe passage, so even if it manages to work the first time, it is easily sided against. But kinda like the auras mentioned above, it will work sometimes and look better than it really is.
Rummaging Goblin - Another that's still good, just not as good as where I think it will be taken early on.
Serpent's Gift - I can see some people thinking of this as removal somehow and taking it middle of a pack, to me it seems like something that should be almost last picked.
Mwonvuli Tracker Beast - If you got a bomb he can search for great, take him, if you don't he's a 3 mana 2/1 that doesn't replace himself.
Yeva's Forcemage - Its better than battleflight eagle, but I still wouldn't value it much higher than other grey ogres.

Edited for Autocard.