[poll] What do you test against?

[nataz]

Alright, a multi-part question, stolen blatently from the Legacy forums. FYI, even though I stole this from the legacy section I'm looking for vintage testing, just in case anyone is feeling a little slow today.

Part I, the poll:
opt 1: none
opt 2: by yourself, no opponent
opt 3: randoms
opt 4: A Control deck, a Combo, a Prison, a Aggro, etc.
opt 5: An honest to god testing guantlet, multiple specific decks
opt 6: other, please explain

That's the questions: What decks do you personally test against when you're working on a deck or are going to a tournament?

The question is not what you recommend others test against. This is just about you and your own little spot on the planet. That is all.

I'll start.

As of right now I test against

TMWA (non-fishy aggro)
Dragon
Gifts
Control Slaver
UW Fish
Travis.dec
Pitch Long

Oath and Stax have pretty much been dumped, although that will probably come back to bite me in the ass at SCG.

[Moxlotus]

Most of the time I test the night before against whatever deck my friends are going to play, if I test at all.

[Whatever Works]

My vote was for "Other"... I find testing partners I trust and we take 1 deck that we want specific results for... and then simulate a tournement with it against a randomly selected list of about 10 decks we would expect...

To get more accurate results on what we may play against we roll a 20 sided dice... w/10 decks... but we have a weighted average to make it more realistic with which decks we might play vs. for example...

On a 20 sided dice:
#1-3 CS
4-6 Gifts
7-9 Stax (1 of each variation)
10-11 Pitchlong
12 Dragon
13 Grimlong
14-15 UW Fish
16-17 Oath
18 TMWA
19 Salvagers
20 Ichorid
TAke 1 specific deck... 1 roll for each round... If you start like 4-0 You can change dice to what you feel top table decks might be... (remove an oath for a pitchlong, or a TMWA for gifts)

It seems kinda cheesey but it gives me an accurate idea of how a deck will actually perform in a tourney... I find it much better then saying... Oh I do ok vs. this/this/this... and bad vs. this... When you know your playing everything you just have a good feel for what could happen. good or bad.

Kyle L

[SonataOfTheCathedral]

I don't test for Type 1, just sleeve up whatever sounds good to me.

[Disburden]

All the big decks.

Stax
Slaver
Gifts
Dragon
Fish
Tendrils combo

[Whatever Works]

wow these results are brutally honest. If this was a type 2 forum the results would be like 65% gauntlet 30% major archtypes... 5% everything else.

I guess this is why T1 is looked at as a casual format, and a not very impressive 1 in the eyes of the rest of the mtg world, because we dont have the same innovation that would be happening if more people tested.

[LordHomerCat]

I used to play a couple hours a week against whatever Lyle was playing that week.  Now, uhhh, its looking like a lot of TMWA and Bomberman...

[Klep]

I play Belcher.  Matchups are irrelevant to me.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Gifts, Oath, SS, and PitchLong.

[wethepeople]

random MWS players all the way!

[Almighty]

wow these results are brutally honest. If this was a type 2 forum the results would be like 65% gauntlet 30% major archtypes... 5% everything else.

I guess this is why T1 is looked at as a casual format, and a not very impressive 1 in the eyes of the rest of the mtg world, because we dont have the same innovation that would be happening if more people tested.

I agree with that assesment. Vintage is a competitive format. The hours of testing that players put in is in proportion to how well they do. Vintage is also the format of the weekend warrior. Players like myself can have the same deck for 4 years with no regular testing and still do fairly well (like >50%) with the few times they actually get to play. I can't do that with type 2.

Why is this format looked at as a casual format? It kinda is.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Skill/experience>testing, though this is of course misleading as testing leads to skill.  Still, I used to test my ass off online, and I sucked; whereas now I test rarely if ever and still do well due to my skill level being much higher.

[ErkBek]

Skill/experience>testing, though this is of course misleading as testing leads to skill.  Still, I used to test my ass off online, and I sucked; whereas now I test rarely if ever and still do well due to my skill level being much higher.

This only applies to people that play the same deck forever. You've played oath for what? Like 1.5 years?

[Whatever Works]

Skill/experience>testing, though this is of course misleading as testing leads to skill.  Still, I used to test my ass off online, and I sucked; whereas now I test rarely if ever and still do well due to my skill level being much higher.

This only applies to people that play the same deck forever. You've played oath for what? Like 1.5 years?

Also note that you can get away with not having to test as much in type 1, but try going into states, Grand Prix, PT's... without testing... and your going to be in the 1-2 bracket pretty quickly regardless of skill.

Also note that at the more competitve MTG events after like round 2... You cant lean on playskill anymore... why? b/c everyone you play against on the PT will be very skilled, and it would take something exceptional to out play pro tour players who frankly dont make mistakes, and if they do... Its a BIG deal...

In short, you can get away w/familiarity & play skill in T1 and expect to do well. In other formats where people constantly test, and after you weed through the crap first 2 rounds of any tournement you will realize that any play skill gap shrinks insanely small, and then testing & matchup knowlege comes heavily into play.

Testing ALWAYS helps. Saying you do better w/o testing is just random chance.

Kyle L.

[BigMac]

I voted goldfish. As i mostly play combo the first and most important thing for me is actually understanding a deck. if you understand a deck you know how to play it to win against most decks. If you know how to play a deck you know how to beat a deck. Then i just go to a tournament and sometimes fail hopelessly. Sometimes it works like a dream.

Mostly i really learn how to play a deck during tournaments. I learn the weaknesses and strengths and then know what to work on.

[jcb193]

The fundamentals of various matchups do not change nearly as frequently as in T2. Ex:  If you understand how to play control vs. stax, a few card tweaks will not change your understanding of the matchup nearly as much as tri-yearly card rotations.

[Whatever Works]

The fundamentals of various matchups do not change nearly as frequently as in T2. Ex:  If you understand how to play control vs. stax, a few card tweaks will not change your understanding of the matchup nearly as much as tri-yearly card rotations.

Thats true to a degree, but alot of people dont even have that basic understanding. Even if that understanding is there that doesn't mean the metagame does not change. Though sets dont rotate out the change in the metagame deck wise has changed just as much as type 2 in essense even w/no rotation of sets.

Consider that in the last year the following things have happened.
-Stax has taken a large dip in popularity.
-CS goes from best deck in format to unplayable by Rich Shay
-Pitchlong created
-Gifts decks scramble following rule changes
-Grimlong created
-Dragons ENTIRE strategy/draw engine changes
-tog remains dead (ok cheap shot i know)
-GAT sees increase in play for short time
-Immergence of BOB in Fish/control.
-Threshold created

The format changes, and saying you know how to play "matchups" isnt enough to consider a person prepared. This was an extremely brief summery too.

The fact of the matter is that if you take any deck played in the format... look at the best list from 4+ months ago... You probably will shake your head and say wow... thats not great... Its partially do to an ever changing metagame, but new sets also impact the format enough that 1 cannot just say they know rebuild is good vs. stax.

Kyle L.