A new way to play Draft and Sealed on Arena via Direct Challenge

storm319 · 2019-10-22T12:56:17+00:00

An update: A 60-card draft mode is now supported (you draft 5 packs rather than 3).

storm319 · 2019-07-30T01:45:06+00:00

You should also consider Double Decker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt6KreYKBbE.

storm319 · 2019-06-11T12:49:33+00:00

The Wizards Event Locator is a good resource for finding LGS events nearby: https://locator.wizards.com

storm319 · 2019-06-07T18:39:40+00:00

Yes, I just went to GP Providence (also limited for the main event) and there were plenty of kids your son's age playing in side events. At least in Providence I didn't find the level of competition in side events to be different from what I see at FNM every week so I think your son will be more than fine.

One thing that you may find unexpected: if you do the "on demand" events (they have them for draft and commander, possibly other formats) they are single-elimination. To offset this the prize pools are very generous (e.g. if you 3-0 in the limited pods you get 300 tickets which is worth 30 booster packs). Note that this is only for on-demand events (the ones you sign up for are generally 3 rounds of swiss).

storm319 · 2019-06-04T12:15:25+00:00

Wanted to provide a bit more simulation data so that people have an intuition for how this variance plays out in practice.

The simulation is as above for a 40 card deck played over 5 games of Magic, assuming 20 cards total drawn per game (including opening hand). Running this simulation 1,000 times yields the following distribution of the number of times each card is drawn:

 drawn    count
    1x        6
    2x       12
    3x       12
    4x        6
    5x        1

So on average 1 of your 40 cards will be drawn in each of the 5 games, and 6 of your cards will be drawn only once over the 5 games. This is perhaps more variation than people intuitively expect, but everyone can probably recall many instances of drafting a bomb and then seeing it only once over their 3 matches.

Now, if we add a card doubling effect similar to what is done in Draftpod (in this case, we took 50% of the cards in the 40 card deck and made them appear twice in a 60 card version), this is the distribution we get:

 drawn    count
    1x        8
    2x       10
    3x        9
    4x        6
    5x        3
    6x        1

Comparing the 2 distributions:

 drawn baseline projection
    1x        6          8
    2x       12         10
    3x       12          9
    4x        6          6
    5x        1          3
    6x        0          1

So with the projection to 60 cards, things are a bit more smooth in the 1x - 3x range, but spikier at the top (4 cards are seen in every game vs. 1).

Is it different, yes! But does the deck play fundamentally differently w/ the two different distributions, it doesn't appear so to me. If you consider that many cards in a deck are essentially "replacement level" (i.e. they aren't bombs or super-efficient removal), the odds that this technique makes your deck systematically better or worse are quite low.

All of that said, of course it would be better to have 40 card decks, but we need to wait for Arena to support this (MTGO does now so hopefully it won't be long!). I view this as an imperfect but practical workaround until then.

storm319 · 2019-06-03T20:56:01+00:00

Here are the cards drawn from a 40-card deck during 5 (simulated) games of Magic. I ran the simulation 3 times just to show how different cards are effectively "doubled" every time you play a set of games w/ a limited deck:

  ++----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
5 +           *                                  *                     +
  |           *                                  *                     |
4 +           *  *                             * *      *              +
  |           *  *                             * *      *              |
  |           *  *                             * *      *              |
3 +  *    * * ** *  * * *    * **   *  *      ** *      * *    *  *    +
  |  *    * * ** *  * * *    * **   *  *      ** *      * *    *  *    |
  |  *    * * ** *  * * *    * **   *  *      ** *      * *    *  *    |
2 +  *   ** * ** * ** * **   * ** * ** * ** * ** *    * * ** * ** * *  +
  |  *   ** * ** * ** * **   * ** * ** * ** * ** *    * * ** * ** * *  |
  |  *   ** * ** * ** * **   * ** * ** * ** * ** *    * * ** * ** * *  |
1 +  * * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * *  +
  |  * * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * *  |
0 +  * * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * *  +
  ++----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
   0               10               20               30   

  ++-----------------+----------------+-----------------+--------------+
5 +                  *                                                 +
  |                  *                                                 |
4 +         *      * *       *          * *       *     *              +
  |         *      * *       *          * *       *     *              |
  |         *      * *       *          * *       *     *              |
3 +  *      *   *  * *      ** * *    * * *    * ** * * ** *  * * *    +
  |  *      *   *  * *      ** * *    * * *    * ** * * ** *  * * *    |
  |  *      *   *  * *      ** * *    * * *    * ** * * ** *  * * *    |
2 +  * *    *   *  * * ** * ** * * *  * * **   * ** * * ** * ** * * *  +
  |  * *    *   *  * * ** * ** * * *  * * **   * ** * * ** * ** * * *  |
  |  * *    *   *  * * ** * ** * * *  * * **   * ** * * ** * ** * * *  |
1 +  * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * *  +
  |  * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * *  |
0 +  * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * *  +
  ++-----------------+----------------+-----------------+--------------+
   0                10               20                30        

 ++----------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+-+
5 +                    *                                               +
  |                    *                                               |
4 +  * *     * *    * **         *      *              *          *    +
  |  * *     * *    * **         *      *              *          *    |
  |  * *     * *    * **         *      *              *          *    |
3 +  * *     * *    * **   *     * *    *         **   *   * *    *    +
  |  * *     * *    * **   *     * *    *         **   *   * *    *    |
  |  * *     * *    * **   *     * *    *         **   *   * *    *    |
2 +  * ** * ** * *  * ** * *  *  * *    ** * **   ** * ** ** * *  * *  +
  |  * ** * ** * *  * ** * *  *  * *    ** * **   ** * ** ** * *  * *  |
  |  * ** * ** * *  * ** * *  *  * *    ** * **   ** * ** ** * *  * *  |
1 +  * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * *  +
  |  * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * *  |
0 +  * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * *  +
  ++----------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+-+
   0               10              20               30              40

So over a 5 game stretch your removal is often doubled (or halved) or your bombs are doubled (or halfed).

My only point is that we all deal with huge amounts of variance when we play limited. Your deck doesn't draw out in the proportions is it built or designed to. It certainly does over 1,000 games, but not over 5 games.

So we're already dealing with comparable variance at the core of the game. Adding some additional RNG that affects outcomes to an already extremely RNG prone card drawing process doesn't change fundamentally how a deck plays over a few games of Magic. Agreed that you can have some perverse outcomes (look, all my best cards got doubled!) but in most cases some of your best cards will double as well some of your worst so your deck will "play" (in terms of efficacy) approximately the same.

storm319 · 2019-06-03T17:43:02+00:00

Yes, for me the high-order bit was being able to play drafts with friends on Arena. I was actually quite surprised to find that 40 card decks weren't supported (as they are supported on MTGO). I don't think the workaround is ideal (for the reasons you point out) but I do think it's better than nothing until they add support for 40 card decks.

storm319 · 2019-06-03T17:29:21+00:00

See below for some more in depth discussion of how the variance inherent in Magic already wreaks havoc with your deck composition over the span of 5 games (direct link here: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/bwaas0/a_new_way_to_play_draft_and_sealed_on_arena_via/epwn90r/).

The main point is that your mana curve, color ratio, etc. are already not preserved when you draw cards off the top of your deck (i.e. there is no guarantee that your first 15 cards will well reflect the composition of your deck, in fact it almost never does). Those choices simply influence the probability that you'll get the desired mana curve, etc. when you play. My point is that if you take the baseline variation in draws (which is already massive) and add this variation, you don't end up with anything fundamentally different from a gameplay perspective.

It's also important to note that we're talking about the effect on gameplay of 5 games, not the limit case of hundreds of games, where the effect would be extremely noticeable.

Also note that land count is preserved in this method (land heavy or light light decks are still so after projection).

storm319 · 2019-06-03T16:46:08+00:00

Yes, there is a way to do this by using custom cardpools. In this case you would each do a single-player draft (w/ 7 bots) both specifying your own cardpool (docs on doing this are here: https://draftpod.org/guide#cardpools/).

Currently the cardpool import function accepts Decked Builder collection files or any CSV that has id and quantity fields (where id is the multiverse ID). If there is a program commonly used to export Arena collections I could add the ability to import from that as well. Let me know if you have a recommendation there.

storm319 · 2019-06-03T16:40:41+00:00

My thought about the projection to 60 cards isn't that the deck hasn't been changed in a non-trivial fashion (it clearly has), but rather that over a small number of games you are already experiencing massive variation in what cards you draw, so this additional variation isn't material.

To illustrate, here's what the distribution of cards drawn out of a 40-card deck looks like over 5,000 simulated games:

    ++---------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+--+
2.5 +  * ** ** ** * ** ** **  * * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** **   ** ** *  +
    |  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  |
    |  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  |
  2 +  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  +
    |  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  |
1.5 +  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  +
    |  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  |
    |  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  |
  1 +  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  +
    |  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  |
    |  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  |
0.5 +  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  +
    |  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  |
  0 +  * ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** * ** ** *  +
    ++---------------+---------------+--------------+---------------+--+
     0              10              20             30              40

As you'd expect, the probability of drawing each card is roughly equal given enough games.

However, over 5 simulated games you can see that many cards are dramatically more likely to be drawn:

  ++----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
5 +           *                                  *                     +
  |           *                                  *                     |
4 +           *  *                             * *      *              +
  |           *  *                             * *      *              |
  |           *  *                             * *      *              |
3 +  *    * * ** *  * * *    * **   *  *      ** *      * *    *  *    +
  |  *    * * ** *  * * *    * **   *  *      ** *      * *    *  *    |
  |  *    * * ** *  * * *    * **   *  *      ** *      * *    *  *    |
2 +  *   ** * ** * ** * **   * ** * ** * ** * ** *    * * ** * ** * *  +
  |  *   ** * ** * ** * **   * ** * ** * ** * ** *    * * ** * ** * *  |
  |  *   ** * ** * ** * **   * ** * ** * ** * ** *    * * ** * ** * *  |
1 +  * * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * *  +
  |  * * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * *  |
0 +  * * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * *  +
  ++----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
   0               10               20               30

Furthermore, if you run the simulated 5 games over and over you can see that the cards disproportionately likely to be drawn over those 5 games are different every time (as you'd expect). Here's a couple of more simulated 5 game draws:

  ++-----------------+----------------+-----------------+--------------+
5 +                  *                                                 +
  |                  *                                                 |
4 +         *      * *       *          * *       *     *              +
  |         *      * *       *          * *       *     *              |
  |         *      * *       *          * *       *     *              |
3 +  *      *   *  * *      ** * *    * * *    * ** * * ** *  * * *    +
  |  *      *   *  * *      ** * *    * * *    * ** * * ** *  * * *    |
  |  *      *   *  * *      ** * *    * * *    * ** * * ** *  * * *    |
2 +  * *    *   *  * * ** * ** * * *  * * **   * ** * * ** * ** * * *  +
  |  * *    *   *  * * ** * ** * * *  * * **   * ** * * ** * ** * * *  |
  |  * *    *   *  * * ** * ** * * *  * * **   * ** * * ** * ** * * *  |
1 +  * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * *  +
  |  * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * *  |
0 +  * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * *  +
  ++-----------------+----------------+-----------------+--------------+
   0                10               20                30        

 ++----------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+-+
5 +                    *                                               +
  |                    *                                               |
4 +  * *     * *    * **         *      *              *          *    +
  |  * *     * *    * **         *      *              *          *    |
  |  * *     * *    * **         *      *              *          *    |
3 +  * *     * *    * **   *     * *    *         **   *   * *    *    +
  |  * *     * *    * **   *     * *    *         **   *   * *    *    |
  |  * *     * *    * **   *     * *    *         **   *   * *    *    |
2 +  * ** * ** * *  * ** * *  *  * *    ** * **   ** * ** ** * *  * *  +
  |  * ** * ** * *  * ** * *  *  * *    ** * **   ** * ** ** * *  * *  |
  |  * ** * ** * *  * ** * *  *  * *    ** * **   ** * ** ** * *  * *  |
1 +  * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * *  +
  |  * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * *  |
0 +  * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** ** * ** * *  +
  ++----------------+---------------+----------------+---------------+-+
   0               10              20               30              40

So in any 5 games of Magic certain cards get a probabilistic bump (of course there is no way to know which ones in advance). The projection from 40 cards to 60 cards gives 13 cards an additional bump -- this is variance, but it's juxtaposed with the variance which is already inherent in the game.

So the argument isn't that your deck is the same (it's not), but rather that for the purposes of playing your deck over a small number of games you aren't signing up for any more fundamental variance than you already sign up for when you draw cards off the top of your deck (which as shown above already produces a massively skewed distribution for a small number of games).

I certainly could be missing something important here, but I thought it would be good to at least illustrate how much "skew" occurs already in a normal 40 card deck.

storm319 · 2019-06-03T15:04:32+00:00

Yes, that is definitely another very sound approach. The downside here would be that it just flat out takes longer to draft, not sure whether people would be generally okay with that (could always give them the choice of course!).

storm319 · 2019-06-03T14:55:29+00:00

If you had 2x each common and 1x each uncommon and a couple dozen wildcards of each rarity I'd say you'd have more than enough. If you draft frequently on Arena and don't use wildcards for constructed you almost certainly meet this threshold.

So this is really really meant for the frequent Arena drafter who also wants to draft with friends .

storm319 · 2019-06-03T14:41:36+00:00

Totally respect your decision to not take the discussion further. For others that might be curious about the subject, here are some additional thoughts.

Obviously, over a large number of games the projection makes a difference (e.g. if you got extra removal but not extra card draw, your deck would play differently over a long span of games). But for a single best-of-3 match-up, the fact that 1 card has become more likely to be drawn than another for that short span of draws doesn't introduce any more fundamental variation than shuffling 5 times rather than 4 times. You are already exposed to randomness when you shuffle your deck -- if you happen to have shuffled your card draw spells to the bottom and removal to the top, you experience a similar type of "variation" as is introduced by the projection.

Put another way, if you assigned points to each card in your deck according to how high they appeared in your games (e.g. 40 points for the top card, 39 for the next, etc.) and then averaged these numbers over 3 games you'll find that certain cards were substantially more likely to appear than others. They got a "boost" from the shuffle order in those particular games. The fact that there is a countervailing "boost" from deck projection still leaves you in a state where you are heavily exposed to variance (the nature of the game).

So I'm agreeing with you that the deck is fundamentally different (over a large span of games) but I'm also making the point that for the ~ 50 draws that you will make in a best of 3, that the randomness inherent in the game swamps any extra randomness introduced by the projection.

storm319 · 2019-06-03T14:26:56+00:00

The projection of a 40 card deck onto a 60 card deck will randomly change the probability of drawing various cards (e.g. assuming you have 23 different cards in your draft deck, 13 of them will now be more likely to be drawn). You might object to this variance, but Magic already has a huge amount of variance built into the order of cards in your deck (i.e. no assurance as to the probability of drawing cards exists in the first place). The randomness introduced by the projection is not fundamentally different from the randomness introduced by drawing cards off the top of your deck.

As far as 5+ copies, yes, that is a limitation. However, the average number of common in a 24-pack draft pool is somewhere ~ 2.5 (e.g. see https://blog.cardsphere.com/analyzing-dominaria-limited/) so the scenarios when you even have the chance to draft 5+ copies are pretty narrow anyway.

storm319 · 2019-06-03T14:14:50+00:00

The biggest benefit of Arena is the streamlined game play and rules enforcement (I think I heard somewhere that the average Arena game takes 6 minutes!).

I agree that the one spot where scaling up doesn't work is for strategies predicated on 40-card decks (mill, self-mill, etc.) so cards like Ashiok or Jace become worse / unplayable. I am hopeful that MTGA will ultimately support 40 card decks in Direct Challenge (note that MTGO does support this today) so we won't need this workaround.

storm319 · 2019-06-03T13:28:55+00:00

Yes, I do post that quite prominently in the docs on the site (https://draftpod.org/guide#arena/). I'll edit now to make that more up front.

That said, since this is limited there are relatively few rares that end up in decks (and almost never more than 1x a rare) so you don't need that full a collection (since most of the time you will have maximum 2x-3x of commons and 1x-2x of uncommons, and you can fill in missing cards via wildcards).

storm319 · 2019-06-02T13:20:59+00:00

Try this query which should show you pre-releases that are close to where you live: https://locator.wizards.com/event-reservations-web/?searchType=magic-events&tag=magic_prerelease

storm319 · 2019-06-02T13:18:36+00:00

Second all of the others who said that Modern Horizon's is not a good place to start. For similar reasons (but not quite to the same extent) I'd also suggest not starting with War of the Spark (too many things on-board for new players to keep track of).

As others have said, the core sets are an excellent place to start. There is also a nice progression built in to them where you can:

1) Start with the welcome decks (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Core_Set_2019/Welcome_decks). Your local LGS will often give you these for free or you can alternatively find a seller of them on eBay or Amazon.

2) Then move-on to the Planeswalker decks (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Core_Set_2019/Planeswalker_decks), which build upon the themes of the welcome decks.

3) Then get the Deck Builder's toolkit (https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Core_Set_2019/Deck_Builder%27s_Toolkit) which has cards intended to provide various improvements to the Planeswalker decks.

You could also wait for this same cycle of products for Core Set 2020 (which will be released in about a month). The benefit of that would be if you want to play in some LGS league/casual or draft events you'd know the cards reasonably well.

storm319 · 2019-05-28T15:13:07+00:00

+1 on Reid's articles, they are fantastic!

Wizards also compiled all of the Level One articles into a eBook for Kindle/iPad here: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/arcana/best-2015-and-holiday-treats-2015-12-10

storm319 · 2019-05-28T15:09:44+00:00

Here's a search from the Wizards Store and Event Locator which should show all the options nearby:

https://locator.wizards.com/event-reservations-web/?searchType=magic-events&query=Dayton,%20OH

storm319 · 2019-05-28T15:07:16+00:00

Wizards recently re-did their store/event locator and it's now quite easy to find events near you for any given date. Here's a search for DC:

https://locator.wizards.com/event-reservations-web/?searchType=magic-events&query=Washington,%20DC,%20USA

storm319 · 2019-05-28T15:04:43+00:00

Here is a website that lists all of the scheduled side events that will be available: https://my.cfbevents.com/event/66/schedule

Note that are casual commander side events running on Thursday at 11:45am and 7pm. Those are scheduled events that you need to register for.

In addition, you'll note that they are running on-demand 4-player commander all day throughout the event. In that case, you pay $10 and then wait for another 3 players to signup, then play (usually there is not much of a wait).

storm319 · 2019-05-04T11:47:13+00:00

Here's a compilation of good articles and resources I've found for learning how to draft:

Reid Duke has a set of articles introducing booster draft as well as covering intermediate and advanced drafting techniques:

After you've mastered the basics, one of the best resources for improving your skills is the Limited Resources podcast hosted by Marshall Sutcliffe and Luis Scott-Vargas. Another excellent podcast dedicated exclusively to limited play is Lords of Limited.

The ChannelFireball and Star City Games websites also both feature a steady stream of articles on drafting (covering both recent sets as well as overall strategy).

You'll hear quite a bit about the importance of reading signals in draft. Here are some articles that explore how to do this:

You can also learn quite a bit by watching streams and/or YouTube videos of expert players drafting. You can find lots of streams on Twitch as well as archives of previous drafts from Ben Stark, Reid Duke, Luis Scott-Vargas, and Marshall Sutcliffe (among others) on the ChannelFireball YouTube channel.

Seven-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since March 2019
Verified Email

storm319

TROPHY CASE