Play Testing

[kinghink]

Hello,

This is my first question on the site, please don't laugh at me, because the subject in question has one of those answers that can either be super obvious or WAY over my head, and I'm banking on the latter, hence me asking this question.

"Play Testing" is a phrase that I hear an awful lot these days. What does "Play Testing" involve? How would one "Play Test" by oneself (not meant to be a setup, but go ahead and take the shots now)? What should I be looking for when I'm testing?

I currently have 4 (all between 68-74 cards each) decks that are played in a relativly rotational basis (R/U creatureless, R/G huge and weenies, R/B land destruction and solo R fireballs galore) and I would like to get them "tournament worthy". They do pretty good on weekend group games with my friends and they all have their merits and faults, but that is not really the measure of how good my deck building/tweaking abilities are/is.

Thank you for your time to respond in advance.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[Spiderman]

I think of play-testing as a way to test your deck without putting anything on the line, such as tourney fees or rankings (or if you want to get down to it, the spankings from your friends )

If you're testing by yourself and just your deck, you can "goldfish". Shuffle and play out a couple of rounds (I usually go to 10). See if you get have mana problems, if you can't cast certain spells, stuff like that.

If you want to get ready for the tourney scene, you need a lot more preparation if you want to do well. Find out what decks are common in your area and see if you can get decklists for them. Proxy them and play with them or against them to see how they might work (Apprentice at www.e-league.com is good for this). Get on a more tourney specific Magic website (someone else will have to direct you to one) and see if those decks are on there and what comments people have made about them, such as card improvements or such.

I'm sure others will come along with more advice

 

[rkoelsch]

another option for some people is using a program like Magic Suitcase that will let you load two decks and then play them one against the other. The user would then have a guantlet of netdecks that they play multiple games against to compare match ups, get ideas on sideboarding and other things.

 

[Zadok001]

You like red, huh?

"Playtesting" is a phrase in use to mean throwing your deck against decks you expect to play against. Basically, grab one of your decks, and play another deck over and over and over, until you're bored out of your mind. Taking notes (or at least recording Wins/Loses) is SOP, but not completely nessesary. Then play a lot of other decks in much the same manner, getting as much variation in your opponent's decks as possible.

Then think back. During those games, did you ever draw a specific card several times, and find it was useless? Did you draw that Thorn Elemental every game, and never get past 5 mana? Did Blazing Salvo actually help you win? Etc... If you run across cards that have served no useful purpose, chances are they don't belong in the deck. Pull 'em out.

If you found that, far too often, you had either too much or too little land, adjust your land count to fix the problem. Finding yourself drawing too many creatures, not enough spells? Adjust. Creature enchantments being useless because you don't have enough creatures? Adjust.

Once you're done making your cornicopia of adjustments, do it all over again. Eventually you reach the theoretical point where your deck cannot be improved upon. By the time you reach that point, however, the decks you play against will also have evolved to deal with the new threats you put out, and you have to start the process all over again. Thus the ever-changing Magical Metagame you'll hear references to.

Now, that's how _I_ playtest, when I really want to tune up a deck to work well. If you're more interested in just getting a deck to functionality and playability, it requires a lot less intensive practice. Spidey described "goldfishing," try doing that for a while. Goldfishing is mainly useful for "fixing" your mana ratio and mana curve up. Don't pay attention to your opponent's life total, it's irrelevant. Just play out to however many rounds an "average" game lasts, and see what happens. Not drawing enough mana of one color? Change it around. Etc... You can't really make individual card determinations like that, since you have no opponent to react to, but you can find out if certain creatures just aren't worth their salt.

Good luck!

 

[arhar]

If you want to try to make your decks tournament worthy, first thing you gotta do is trim them down to 60 cards.

 

[MrXarvox]

not necessarily. if you're playing battle of wits you might want to run about 250!


<I love that card...>

 

[kinghink]

Thank you for all the help guys, it's much been appreciated.

I once got a deck down to 60 (the pure red one) but had to add more mana to it. I have a difficult time whittling down to 60 in any/every case. I feel it's the one skill I have to learn if I want to improve to a higher playing level.

Tonight I'm gonna call up someone and try out some serious "play testing" of playing the same deck over and over and over again. I usually pay attention to cards that are useless to me (recently removed 2 recoups as I ultimately realized that I should have more than 6 sorceries to make that worth my while) and a few other notables "tweaks".

As a fairly new person to this board, you guys are very helpful. I'm glad I stumbled across it. I was expected to be lambasted for such an obvious question, but you guys have taken me rather seriously, and I thank you.

And yes, I like red

Cheers,

Mark

 

[theorgg]

From what I read, you don't have a very serious playgroup.

At that point, play for fun mostly-- don't jump into tournaments all at once. You will lose. That's a fact of life unless you start with a professional group-- and the chance of that is slim. Try out a tournament and see what people are playing. Then see how your decks do against all the things that are there.

If you deck beats them consistantly, it's a good choice.

But that comes fairly later. Right now, play and have some fun. Tournaments are much less fun that just sitting around playing Magic for gits and shiggles. You might get burt out on Magic playing just tournament level items, and then there's the rules you've gotta know pretty well so as to not get screwed in a tournament...

Right now, just have fun.

And WELCOME to the Casual Players' Alliance, or the CPA. whatever.

Also, where you from? some of us might live around you and can get together at a local store for some games.

 

[Spiderman]

If you do intend to pkayin tourneys, start small and try your local game shop, if you have any (or perhaps go to a prerelease where the atmosphere is more relaxed, or so I hear).

Read up on the rules and what your cards do.

 

[kinghink]

For me, Magic is not about being necessarily a "serious" player, but a better one, as far as seeing combinations that work well together, providing a stronger defence, better deck construction, etc.

I don't think that we are a serious gaming group, however, we're always trying to out-do one another... kinda sorta "the next big creature" syndrome. I don't necessarily play in that arms race because I don't need a 7/7 creature that's 10 to cast (for example, not citing a specific card). I look for cards that compliment what I'm aiming to achieve, rather than throwing it in because it's "awesome". My land destruction deck has 4 Orcish Settlers, and I was laughed at when I bought the silly little commons. No one laughs at them now

I'm looking to improve my ability to build and execute before I consider the (local) tournament circuit. I've been to three tournaments (all sealed) and did... decently. It was a tremendous learning experience. One of my friends was a win away from placing top 8 which would've been amazing since it was his first tournament and he is one of our better builders (a win would have put him 5th or 6th... he had a draw in his record) but has been playing forever and a day.

We have two shops in the area (Hamilton, Ontario) that do regular tournaments, one on Fridays and one on Sundays. Neither myself or my friends have actively sought out entering such tournaments, at least not yet. I'm sure I'm the first one to actively ask questions in a Magic community (online or otherwise) so I assume that I will be the first one to enter such a tournament.

I look at when I first started playing... all my cards were "hand me downs" and "throw aways" from others, and I had this huge red/green deck. I look to where I've come from, and I've made leaps and bounds since then. Because I can better explain cards and theory of chance, I've managed to help people, who are still relative newbies, learn a faster better game in 1/5th of the time than I did.

Essentially, I'm trying to master the "back end" (randomization, card levels and quantities, mana levels and balance, etc.) of the game before I begin to worry about the "front end" (cards and what they do, combos, etc.) and I'm getting there.

Thanks

Mark

 

[Spiderman]

The type of tournament also changes slightly how you prepare for it (with the exception of knowing the rules and cards).

All the advice above was pretty much for Constructed, where you bring your own deck. Sealed and draft are slightly different; that's when good deckbuilding takes over since you don't know what cards you're getting.

For those formats, a good guideline is 40-41 cards, with 16-18 land, good evasive creatures, and removal. Obviously it'll differ from situation to the next, but that's a good place to start.

In draft, I think the general advice is to stay with a color or two and go for it, even if it means passing some good cards to the other players. Otherwise you wind up with a lot of 5 color cards and no real way to play them.

 

[Zadok001]

Gotcha. You're me. You just described my play group about 3.5 years ago. Everyone was seeking out the better tech, and we had an arms race. Well, actually, I think I started it when I started understanding ideas like card advantage by reading stuff online. From there, I dissiminated the information to my group.

And the arms race began. We've evolved enormously, gaining and losing players. Are we better off that when we started the arms race? I don't know. But we're definately in a very different place. I'll warn you, the game changes a LOT over the course of learning the deeper tactics. It's not the same.

But it's still fun. My Magic world has changed a lot since then. But I love this game, and it still rules.

Anyways, that's my incoherent rant for the day - Waking up at 1:30 AM to answer a phone call from someone who's timezone actually makes it _4:30_ AM for them is not the most pleasant experience. *YAWN!*

Welcome to the CPA! Enjoy yourself 'round here!

 

[gbs3769]

Playtesting can be a long and tedious process. I know that the last tournament I played in, we play tested for about a week before the thing.

Playtesting not only allows you to find the cards that should or shouldn't be in your deck, it also helps you with game-time decisions. If you are in a situation against an opponent and you playtested something similar, then you have an edge.

While you may not be worried about the size of your deck right now... 60 cards is really the way to go. I would suggest posting your decks over in the deck forum and have some of us take a look at them.

I know as soon as I get home I'll be posting some of mine for critique.

- Matt

 

[kinghink]

The game has already taken one huge "evolution" amongst my circle of friends. When I first started, I continually get smacked around by a black deck... mind you, this was in the day when Ice Ages was still "new" and I was crap at the game.

Now, the game of "catch-up" has been, and still is being, played. I've managed to make up for alot of lost time, and the complexion of the game NOW resembles nothing like it was THEN.

Because we have fresh faces, fresh cards and strange (but capable) ideas, the games are pretty good and surprisingly balanced. Everyone has a different slant on the game, however if we were all "hardcore" about the game and learned from one another, we'd be very good.

Allow me to describe the collective in a descriptive means.

- the man with one deck. A brutal black/white deck that scares the living QUACK (I read a thread about noises... so I'd do it for the sake of it) out of all of us, but the deck is not built for one-on-one play Been playing for over 5 years (like myself... sorta) and is probably the master of the said "arms race"

- the piss-off artist. builds decks to annoy other people. when it works, it works brilliantly, but times like that are few and far between. been playing less than a year but has come a long way and is a quick study. Good in one on one games, crap in multi (I have no guilt about saying this as he'll agree)

- the consummate newbie. As a great black/white deck that after about 15 rounds, he's pretty much won the game. Other than that, it takes him forever to get going and is not very good in a one on one scenario. been playing less than 6 months

- the man who plays with more restricted and illegal cards than anyone I've ever seen. builds these disgustingly powerful decks... if it wasn't for the simple fact he wouldn't even be allowed in the building of a tourney with it, let alone sit down with it.

- myself. the flavour of the week guy. 4 different decks, 2 very good (by our standards) 2 that are coming along. each weekend, one of the decks is my "new favorite". My biggest problem is mana abundance/shortages.


This is the collective I deal with. But we're good as long as we keep it "fresh" as there is a possibility to hit a lull, but I don't want to let that happen... at least... not yet

Would you guys say that your friends are hardcore players, casual, a mix. I wanna see what others are going through.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[Spiderman]

Mine is definitely casual; these guys haven't played since around Mirage and are just getting back into it.

• one's a "simple" player, so far playing R/G or R/W, with "simple" creatures and burn and stuff.
• I can't really get a feel for this guy, but the others respect his deckbuilding abilities since they know him better. So far he's only played a mono-green deck with Force of Nature as the big guy.
• this guy has interesting ideas and a better grasp of gameplay and rules than the first two.
• I have no idea how to characterize myself. So I won't

 

[kinghink]

Go ahead, be egotistical

I know I'm a pretty good player in comparison to those I play.

I know I'm crap in a tourney settings (I buckle under pressure alot).

It's not an ego trip, it's knowing what I know to be true

Mark

 

[Zadok001]

My playgroup consists of:

Me. The intravenous internet boy. I know every online author, what they're playing, what they think is bad, and why. I have more random decklists floating through my head than most, and I've managed to learn the rules fairly well. But I'm not a master of the GAME. Some strategy continues to elude me on a day-to-day basis, and I make dumb mistakes. The Combo player, if anyone is.

Duel. Brutality. Its a rare day when one of his decks is built to play nice and diplomatic. Stompy, Stasis, Sneak Attack/Pandimonium, 3-Color-Control... If he's not making SOMEONE mad, he's not doing his job. Punny, by nature, so his decks usually have... "Interesting" names and themes.

Slick. The Mana Cliff. Likes expensive stuff, whether that be by mana cost or card value. Rarely plays overpoweringly good decks, usually has a mana curve that looks like the Himalayas, but if you let him get going, every turn from 8 on out is made of something you can't deal with.

Sean. The controller. Blue. Counter that. Black sometimes. Discard that. His decks tend to be ready for all contingencies, they never seem to be sitting still against a threat. Comes up with some of the most useless and pointless combos of all time, then uses them. He once used a 5+ card combo to present every other player in a multiplayer game with an ENORMOUS number of copied creatures (I can't remember what creature, maybe Goblin Spy?). Then he conceeded.

Adam. Always trying some new card. Meddling Mage is useless until you've looked through his deck, 'cause whatever he's playing, you've never seen it before. And if you have, chances are its been changed past recognizability.

Daniel. If you have eliminated all other players in a multiplayer game, and have four Morphlings out with an enormous supply of blue mana, and Dan has no permanents or cards in hand... You're still going to lose. Because he's always got SOMETHING up his sleeve. Every time. And again, you've never seen it before. He plays the most random cards. You take one look at one of his decks, and laugh him out of the room - 'Til he beats your head in ten games in a row. Easily the best player I've ever met, and probably the best I ever will meet. If he put his mind to it, I'd put down money that he's made Mowshowitz look like a newbie.

 

[Spiderman]

Go ahead, be egotistical

Well, in my evaluation, I'd probably beat the first two and probably the third 2/3 of the time, only because I have a better grasp of the rules (and I'm talking basic rules, like being able to respond to fast effects and whatnot). Player 3 would be tough probably the first couple of time just because of his strange ideas. I did beat him in a duel with my LD deck posted in the Deck forums. And again, I'm still not sure about the second player; the only duel I played against him, we ended up in a creature stalemate and then had to abandon the game as Player 1 had finally finished building his deck.

 

[fuzzy510]

Play-testing for me is just drawing a few hands and playing a few turns, pretending that I have a thoroughly incompetent opponent. It helps me. In fact, I'm testing a freaky G-W deck I just built.....

 

[Apollo]

My playgroup, when I can get them to play, consists of 4 other guys. We all started at the same time (them a month or so before me). We were about at the same level, I was winning maybe 55% of the time, and then I went to a couple tournaments and foudn the Dojo, and sudenly I was 10 times better than them. And it's hard to bring down your level of play. I played stretches of games with them where I'd win 20 in a row. Because I knew all these concepts, and I'd build a deck and think "Oh, I've got to put Hymn to Tourach in there," and my friends would still be playing with Scaled Wurms, and I wouldn't be able to bring my decks to a level where it would be competitive. They resisted my attempts to educate them (they just didn't really have the energy to check out these sites and such), and we ended up with a really unbalanced playgroup.

But I was winning tournaments. So it was good, right? Nah. It's more fun when you and your playgroup come up together, learning together. So what if you do bad at tournaments? Playing with your friends is more fun, anyway.

My advice? Don't go too serious into the tournaments. Go, have a good time, but don't put hours and hours playtesting for it and reading strategy online. Hang out here, have fun with us, have fun with your friends. Make those little discoveries (like Hymn to Tourach for us) by yourself, over time, instead of reading them online. Those little discoveries are the best part. Winning isn't that important.

Just my take...