Do you Test Type One on a Regular Basis?

[Smmenen]

Do you feel that continuous testing is important?  Do you test Type One more regularly than the week or night before a tournament?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  If you enjoy playing t1, why wouldn't you test more?

[Fominian]

On the testing note: Yes in the grand scheme of things I spend a lot of time either testing online (through various friends and random shmucks on MWS) or in person with friends here.

Why do I do this? Simple - to keep my skill up in various forms of decks and as it stands now I am able to take the majority of decks and hold my own with them.  The other far reason I do it is to design new decks (in my mind to design decks you need to be an expert of the other decks, thus enabling an outmaneuvering of sorts)

I try to spend at least one hour (more oft then naught it ends up being more) a day - its like studying, if you cram before the exam you are doing yourself no good, you have too keep it up in small increments.

[Sanity_XIV]

On an unrelated note: Cramming for exams does indeed help.

On a related note: I'm just starting to test for a T1 tournament in January, and will probably do a bunch more testing after exams. I think a lot of testing for a tournament is important as much for knowing what to do against other decks as it is for your own deck.

Also, since type one is my favorite format to play anyways, I enjoy just taking out my deck and playing for fun, most often not in the spirit of testing so much as the sake of amusement between draft rounds or before drafting, etc.

[rozetta]

The 3 people I used to regularly test with locally have not been playing for a while now, so unfortunately most of the testing I do is against myself. This is a boring and laborious process, so I reserve it mainly for when I'm designing a new deck. Nowadays, even combo decks cannot be learned solely by goldfishing, so this seems to be the best way for me to learn the matchups. In a way, this kind of testing is convenient for me, since I can fit it in whenever I have a free moment, so I can still do other activities and my girlfriend is not bothered by my absence. I still miss having a real testing partner, though.

[kakeboy07]

I happen to read this site on an almost daily basis... I test at least 3-4 times a week, sometimes for more than 3 hours at a time.

I feel that continuious testing helps me become aware of more than just the latest "net deck". It allows me to tune my decks to what I'm expecting to face, and know how to deal with the problems that my deck will encounter.

I also feel that testing is important because type one tournaments dont happen that often. Keeping up to date with your testing allows you to make well-informed game time decisions when it really matters.

A prime example of this:

Last week I saw someone who I had never met before bring a fully powered doomsday deck to a tournament, only to run himself out of a win two times because he did not have the "ideal" 5 card setup still in his deck.

There is no excuse for these types of errors in type one. Its type one for a reason. The people who play type one .. .are the ones who love magic for the game.

You'd be playing type 2 if you wanted the glory/prize money... but type one is all about respect... and respect comes from knowing what to side in, what your opponents kill is going to be 2 turns into the game, knowing exactly what to wish for, when to tap out, what to name, and what wins/loses everytime you draw a card.

Its just like watching the world series of poker. When Chris Ferguson has 7 outs left in the deck, and 2 cards coming... he knows exactly what the outs are and what ones he would like to see the most...

Its instinct, and that comes from playing with the cards...

The exact same is true in magic.


-Joel-

[Kowal]

I am simply a machine programmed to pwn.

I need no testing.

[Smmenen]

You should set a better example.

[Kowal]

A better example for what?  I don't actually test.  Goldfish, sure.

[Gabethebabe]

Testing is boring.
Playing is fun.

I bring my decks to a tourney, freshly netdecked if necessary (usually with adjustments to my metagame) and start testing of the deck in game 1 of the tournament.

[Smmenen]

Cool.  Maybe we'll play in a tourament some day.

[Freelancer]

Well basicly i'm a poor sucker without a test partner...so I mainly play around MWS a bit (to bad most players suck up there -correction aren't very good ), bugger that I never get to test against real good opponents (hint ) ah well having fun is the most important thing anyway.

Remember though; the best way to test is to have fun while you are testing...

(ie. without fun the game/testing is worthless...there is no other reason to play this game)

[MIZEnhauer]

I test fairly regulary, I test every weekend.  But what I think is jusdt as important is Goldfishing and getting a good understanding of what hands are keepable.  I Goldfish alot, whether i'm watching TV are just sitting around.  I went to the Lotus tournament in NJ just last weekend and I goldfished for a couple of hours the day before the tournament jsut fine tuning my deck.  So I think that Testing is diffucult seeing as people on MWS rarely play good decks and sometimes you're just the only person who plays t1 near you.  But i think testing can be replaced fairly well and I mean fairly by Goldfishing with the deck you are thinking about playing daily.

[Bulls on Parade]

(ie. without fun the game/testing is worthless...there is no other reason to play this game)

Sorry, but I have an issue with this statement. Don't get me wrong; I love a good T4 game or what have you as much as the next person, but some players play to win because they(we) find high level competition to be the real reason we have "fun" with the game. For me, sure I got into Magic way back because it looked like a fun game to play, before I knew about the DCI or tournaments. But now I continue to play not because I enjoy playing the same casual games as I did 6 or 7 years ago, but because I've found a seperate level of play that I now call "fun". So have a blast doing what's fun for you, but realize that what you might view as laborious or a chore might be what a lot of other players think is the more fun aspect of the game.

Remember though; the best way to test is to have fun while you are testing...

The best analogy I can draw to help convey my point is this- An athlete who lifts weights off-season to prepare for their sport can see lifting as a necessary diligence, while another athlete may enjoy preparing for their sport in the same way, because they love being prepared for competition or maybe just because they enjoy the task.

I like playtesting and I like playing in tournaments, but I view them as two parts of the same action, because I would never do one if I didn't plan on doing the other.

[Komatteru]

The best analogy I can draw to help convey my point is this- An athlete who lifts weights off-season to prepare for their sport can see lifting as a necessary diligence, while another athlete may enjoy preparing for their sport in the same way, because they love being prepared for competition or maybe just because they enjoy the task.

I second this point.  I like lifting weights to an extent, but I don't like it anywhere near as much as I like playing baseball.  However, lifting makes me a better baseball player and is necessary for me to do well.  The pain and soreness of lifting is not particularly fun, but I like the feeling of a good workout and the positive effects it has on my body after I recover.  Other players love the weight room and spend all their spare time in there working out.  The fact that it helps them become better at their sport is an added bonus for doing something they really enjoy--they would do it even if it didn't help, while I probably wouldn't.

Back to Magic, I don't have a competant testing partner down at school, so I am forced to test against myself.  It's not the most helpful, as I don't know how to play every deck in the format perfectly, but it does help me understand the other decks--what Stax does when it needs to stall, what Control Slaver casts when it doesn't have any answers, etc.  I figure it's better to test against myself, who am moderately competant with every deck in the format and has good knowledge of the format, than against some random person who is just bad in general.

I goldfish a lot, like nearly everyday, and I think about what I'm playing all the time.  I don't get a chance to play in tournaments regularly anymore (not like the summer, where I got to play Vintage every week with a group of amazing players), but I did just find a place that has Vintage tournies an hour from me on Fridays.  I'm not sure the competition I'll find there, but at least it's something.  I discuss strategy with my teammates nearly everyday, but haven't branched into any MWS or Apprentice testing, although I'd like to (I need to get off my ass and just do it).

I also enjoy the competition and the challenge of playing with talented players.  I find testing to be like practice is in baseball--necessary to do well.  It's not always enjoyable, but if I want to do well, I need to do it.

I agree, Kowal is a walking bad example.  But we already knew that.    He showed us that the best thing to do when you're running on like -42 hours of sleep is to play complicated combo.  Hehe.

[Stupid_Newb]

Because of my location, I can't really test that much. The group I usually play with in person only plays Limited and T2, with the exceptions of a few who proxy wacky combo decks, which make for a pretty unrealistic metagame.

But, I really do test quite a bit on MWS with varied decks. I've probably played a lot of you on MWSplay.net. That's how I do most of my testing, usually about an hour or so a day.

[xDeathwishx]

I test often, but  moslty goldfishing. There is the one or two days in a week where i meet up with my test group to try out new decks. Praticing is not at all essential to play, but i believe is very relevant that you must practice somewhat to increase your skills and game. Youll have a better chance of suceeding at a tourney if you test your deck often, understand it inside-out, and finally understand the meta you face.

[The Atog Lord]

I test a lot. I'll test against teammates and friends, both IRL and online. Sometimes I'll even play against whoever's on MWS at the moment when I have no other options.

The more you play with a deck, the better you get. Mastering a deck is very hard, and you won't even be able to see your own mistakes at first. Playtesting often and playtesting well -- and giving a deck enough time to learn -- are important steps in success.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I playtest a fair amount; not nearly as much as some on this site.

However, most of the success I've had I'd attribute to two other factors...

1) Accumulated Knowledge  

When Meandeck Oath took a bunch of T8's at SCG, I didn't really test that much against it, however, I'm 4-0 against in in tournament play.  The main reason for this is that I've been playing tournament level magic for over two years, and I've learned enough above similar archetypes to be able to gauge how to play against it.  Although our format is fairly dynamic, most "new" decks can be related to previous major archetypes.  Eventually you learn game situations that are comparable across metagame evolutions.  In this case (Meandeck Oath) I played for 4-5 months with Emerald Alice (gro-oath, for the newbs), have played with or against mono blue hundreds of times, and have a tendency to play combo-control when it's viable and I can find a build I enjoy playing.  This type of experience allowed me to draw conclusions and build solutions without having to actually test extensively.

2) Skill with a particular deck/archetype

I mentioned that I often play combo-control, and I think it's somewhat well known among locals that I have a penchant for GAT.  I never really understood how well I play the deck until I watched others in tournaments, and saw what I thought were obviuos play mistakes.  A more recognizable example is PhantomTapeWorm's success with Fish style decks.  This doesn't mean I'd play the deck blindly (I certainly wouldn't consider it for a tournament now).  It means that if it's a good choice for the metagame, and I'm playing it, I have a much better chance than someone who's picking up a comprably metagamed deck that they're less familiar with.

Belcher is an incredibly powerful deck.  However, anyone who's played a number of times against Iamfishman (as opposed to someone who randomly lost to him in a tourney) can see that his "amazing topdecks" are more a factor of his skill with the deck.  His risks are calculated on lots of experience with the deck, which allows him to increase his odds of winning with almost every game choice he makes.

The more you play with a deck, the better you get. Mastering a deck is very hard, and you won't even be able to see your own mistakes at first. Playtesting often and playtesting well -- and giving a deck enough time to learn -- are important steps in success.

Hopefully this isn't too off topic, but TAL, if you have an opinion, how does this phenomena vary across formats.  Especially in formats that change more frequently, and have new archetypes which demand different skills and approaches?

Would you say that this is something where Vintage players catch a break, since there experience is more transferable as decks and metagames change?

[Smmenen]

GI: I hope you read my next SCG article about Skill in T1 becuase I think you will find my discussion on Belcher extremely interesting.  I know Michael Simister pretty well from having played with him ALOT here in COlumbus, Origins and Gencon and he got 3rd place at Gencon with Belcher because of those reasons you cited to Ray.  I talk about that quite a bit.

Second, I think you are absolutely right about accumulated knowledge. I don't actually test as much as I otherwise would becuase I already have a sense how many matchups go.  I mostly test for SBing plans now unless it is a brand new deck and I test anyway even though I know how its going to play out.

Mostly, Meandeck is such a testing oriented team (it's our primary purpose as a team) that we test out of habit now.

[VGB]

Mostly, Meandeck is such a testing oriented team (it's our primary purpose as a team) that we test out of habit now.

I never playtest to determine a deck's strengths and weaknesses, as that should be obvious from the list itself.

I only slap cardboard to find all synergies that aren't immediately apparent.

Once you can envision every scenario possible given a particular stack's self-interaction, then playtesting becomes pointless.

One could argue that this changes with varying matchups, but it really doesn't - all that changes are the tactics.

That is so easy to discover that it suggests conspicuousness or little need for perspicacity in the observer. I'm speaking from the standpoint of determining a deck's viability, and not playtesting to hone one's skills.

[Smmenen]

Well, I obviously don't agree with that at all.

[VGB]

Well, I obviously don't agree with that at all.

The only real way to keep really abreadst in this format is to play/test all the premier decks.  Can you concur with that?

[Smmenen]

Well I think there are lots of reasons to test.

The first reason is that most t1 decks are much more difficult to play than they seem at first - at least most decks worth playing.  If you don't play test you can't begin to start making better decisions.  

I think people should also test to gauge the strength or weakness of SB plans and see what cards can be problematic for you.

I might be rare in doing this, but I try to gain expertise on every deck in the format.  I play every deck in the format at least a few times.

[The Atog Lord]

GI,

This applies both to Type One and to other constructed formats. You can do well in a tournament with a deck you have not tested, and you can do poorly after testing a deck for a long time. However, it has been my own experience that testing a deck increases the likelyhood that you will do well with that deck.

There are, I believe, three main reasons to playtest. First, playtesting gives you an idea of which deck beats which other decks. By knowing where each deck stands in the metagame, you are better able to make an informed decision about which deck to select for a given tournament.

Second, testing can demonstrate deficiencies in decklists and problems in matchups. Testing can reveal, for example, (and I use an Extended example here to avoid flames) that Goblins has a very strong game one against The Rock, but a miserable games Two and Three if Goblins fails to find an answer to Engineered Plague.

The first benefit of testing I mentioned dealt with selecting a deck, and the second dealth with tuning a decklist. The third benefit of testing is learning how to play a deck, and in particular learning how to play certain matchups. For example, Control Slaver is a very difficult deck to play well, and you won't understand how it even works after just a couple games playing it. Moreover, you need to play the deck differently in different matchups. Control Slaver against Keeper plays a very different game than it does against Death Long. (And again, I'm using these only as examples; I'm not trying to start a discussion on how Control Slaver works here).

So, GI, testing is crucial. Testing against established decks, and testing against whatever wacky decks your friends have are both ways to learn a deck better. There is, from my own experience, a correlation between testing and results. Magid decks are, for me at least, often not easy to play. I often cannot even see my own mistakes with a deck when I begin to use it.

In other words, if you are thinking of picking up some hot new deck the night before a tournament because this or that article got you excited about it, don't. Play the deck you've put time into testing, as long as that deck is even decent. I'd much rather walk into a tournament with a mediocre deck that I can play very well than walk into a tournament with an amazing deck with which I have no experience.

Yes, Type One players get an advantage in that their knowledge of a deck sticks around because the decks stick around. I can play old Extended Trix pretty darn well, but that's useless because there is no Extended Trix to be played. Whereas, I've been playing Control Slaver for a while now, and have no plans to adopt a new deck. I need to learn new matchups as they arise, but that's much easier than learning to play a whole new deck.

To address a few other points.

I might be rare in doing this, but I try to gain expertise on every deck in the format. I play every deck in the format at least a few times.

I agree with you 100% Steve. Playing a deck is the best way to learn how a deck works. And knowing how a deck works is the best way to determine how to beat that deck. Do you want to beat affinity? Don't just throw a bunch of Energy Fluxes into your sideboard and assume that you'll win the match. If you really want to win the match, play with Affinity, and learn the deck's weaknesses. Then exploit those.

I never playtest to determine a deck's strengths and weaknesses, as that should be obvious from the list itself.

That's very impressive. Someday I hope to be good enough to be able to do that. Sadly, right now, I'm not able to do this.

[VGB]

That's very impressive. Someday I hope to be good enough to be able to do that. Sadly, right now, I'm not able to do this.

I'm not saying that one should be able to look at a list and instantly determine "it dies to combo, Energy Flux, Null Rod, etc."; it still requires a lot of careful consideration.

Slapping around cardboard is just a hands-on way to produce the same results that serious thoughtful dissection does.  Some people require motor interaction to make a decision; I'm simply stating that I put more effort into mental appraisal.

[nickvos]

I don't necessarily agree with the need to test every deck individually to learn its strengths/weaknesses/synergies/etc.  I suppose in one respect I agree with Steve and GI that if you have played with/tested a certain archetype then an evolution of that archetype may prove easy to master for you, as you already know the basics of it.

  In addition to that, however, I think this ability varies with each person. I know that when I played TnT at GenCon, I had never personally played it before; however, I had played against it with JACO on numerous occasions, whom I consider to be a very adept player. Also, prior to my playing it at SCG III, I had never piloted Oath before either - not even for Extended.

  My point is that I believe certain players can gain that play knowledge without personal playtest time on a deck and/or through playing against it with persons who know the deck well (like Steve mentioned with Michael Simister).  

   I still think, though, that most players require that time to mature with a deck and discover each of its qualities.

(I can't believe I just agreed with Steve)

[LotusHead]

I test Type 1 by having a variety of Proxy decks to test against, and training the locals to play T1. It takes a while to make a proper proxy deck, and I have to be interested in the deck to be bothered with proxying it up.

For example, I have a version of Meandeck Oath, a version of Chrushing Chamber, Mike Panas' 4cc version, and Random-Miser's Invincible Counter Troll.  Eventually, I'll re-assemble a proper Stax build, Fish build, and a Welder varient or two.

The locals here will NEVER have power, but they sure do know how to use it.

I train them to play MY deck (Auriok Salvagers Combo/Control), and they are VERY familiar with it, so I can train myself to play Keeper/Oath, etc.

While this isn't as effective as say, having Powered Friends with Extensive Knowledge to test with/ design with, at least I have kids hooked on Type 1.

The trick is to make each Proxy deck seem Special.  Put some work into each proxy card, try to make them make sence.  All my proxy Cunning Wish cards are from other instant 2U cards, so the locals know what the casting cost is.  Memory Jar's come from Thought Prison, Brainstorms come from ThoughtLaces, etc.

Some decks, like Crushing Chamber is 90% budget cards (Skullclamps and Ornithopters, etc), so 90% of that deck is actually REAL and easy for the locals to pick up on.

Other decks, like a version of Mono-blue Belcher always lost to MY deck, so I tore it apart.

All of this Proxy deck stuff does not neccessarily represent the true "Meta" of this area, but it does give me a way to practice Brainstorm Common Sence, Wasteland recovery and so forth.

If a local kid beats my proxy deck using my Real deck, I am pleased.

In short, I test to keep locals interested in Type 1 and to have competition against my main deck.

[VGB]

For example, I have a version of Meandeck Oath, a version of Chrushing Chamber, Mike Panas' 4cc version, and Random-Miser's Invincible Counter Troll.  Eventually, I'll re-assemble a proper Stax build, Fish build, and a Welder varient or two.

I would suggest that you remove ICT from your gauntlet - It's hardly a badge of honor, or even a remotely viable deck, as it is simply a crappier version of UrPhid.

I would also suggest adding Dragon, Tog, and 5/3 to that gauntlet in addition to the ones you mention.

The locals here will NEVER have power, but they sure do know how to use it.

Is it up to you whether they buy Magic cards or not?

I train them to play MY deck (Auriok Salvagers Combo/Control), and they are VERY familiar with it, so I can train myself to play Keeper/Oath, etc.

If you are truly interested in getting people into T1, then I suggest you expose them to more than just your pet deck.  It is a noble thing to recruit people into Magic, but if you treat people like your personal guinea pigs I doubt they will stay interested long.

While this isn't as effective as say, having Powered Friends with Extensive Knowledge to test with/ design with, at least I have kids hooked on Type 1.

That's a start - but until you do have P.F. with E.K., then by your own admission, Your Metagame Sucks(TM), and you will always have a terrible time convincing people of anything or producing playtest results worth a damn as long as that remains the case.

In short, I test to keep locals interested in Type 1 and to have competition against my main deck.

While I find nothing wrong with espousing a pet deck, fanatical devotion is silly.  To worship a single list and deny all others means you submit yourself to the most debilitating weakness a T1 player can possess - ignorance.  Pretty much everyone in this thread agrees that in order to playtest effectively, you have to know how all the top decks work by playing with them all.

[Vegeta2711]

I test off an on w/ teammates for the most part and with friends when we get bored. That's about it really, I get bored of testing pretty quickly though and start testing new decks after like 5-6 games though. My main issue is after trying decks between 5-10 times I basically can run them through my head and get accurate results usually. (don't try this at home kiddies)

The thing is, testing is basically required for you to master a deck. I can figure out matches beautifully just in my head, but it doesn't allow me to take into account the fact that I can outplay my opponent with some decks or that I'll always play perfectly. The problem with a lot of people is the reluctance to actually master a deck. That's the main reason why I test and should be yours.

I've basically mastered playing anything with little red men in it from years ago. Picking up Goblin Bidding took like 3 games to adapt and I had already figured out how to win the mirror match, (Something maybe 10% of the people knew at the time) Gobvantage came in less than a dozen games and the same with FCG. I can safely say I'd post better results with a red deck than 90% of other people given the same deck.

People pick up these sort of decks and figure because they can make one or two decisions they are automatically qualified to run the deck.  Wrong. You know why Nakamura did well with at PT Colombus with RDW? Becuase he could play the deck just about perfectly. People also tend to not realize that being good with a deck doesn't just skew the mirror match, it has the capability to make every match far better than playtesting may tell you. This is why the best Ravager players excel to the top in a 'luck' based mirror, vs. hate decks w/ 12 artifact destruction spells MD and just flatout lucky players.

The fact is people probably don't test enough, but more importantly, they aren't getting good with anything they do test. A lot of people aren't really that good, it's just everyone else is really that bad.

[MrZuccinniHead]

i test every new deck that comes out of the woodwork, and i test, at least once a week, every big-name deck in the format on MWS just to stay sharp.  Also, before an online tournament I do a lot of testing with the deck i'm going to play (most recently Goth Slaver and I top 8ed).