Do you Test Type One on a Regular Basis?

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

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.

I think that in magic, like most games, etc, it is very easy/tempting to just accept that one is good in general(whether one actually is or not), and thus not bother to test/practice.  Similarily, it is easy  to accept that one can play a particular deck, and thus not practice with it enough to actually eliminate most play errors.

When I go into a tournement I want to feel prepared and confident.  Testing is the only thing that allows me to do that short of self-delusion.  The more rounds one plays the more likely one is to make mistakes, due to the fact that more opportunities for mistakes exist and simple fatigue.  Every time I strive to play perfectly, and I am always frustrated when I make a mistake.  Constantly honing one's skills is the solution (similar to me at least to piano playing and chess, other interests that I have where skill quickly diminshes through inactivity).

That said, I probably don't test as much as I should .  I try to maintain a certain level of skill, but I think every player should be able to admit that they can improve in some way, as I am certainly willing to do.

[M.Solymossy]

I try to test as much as possible, but most often with job's and school schedules, it is very hard for myself and other's to get together and test.  That is why it's so great to read such in depth articles on TMD...   By reading what issues others have come up with, i Am able to see strength's and weaknesses that deck has.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I test very, very rarely, and go to tournaments even less than that. GenCon Indy is the only thing I'm likely to show up to regularly.

[theorigamist]

I have no time to test, but I have also stopped going to tournaments, which I also have no time for.  Over the summer I went to a few tournaments, but I didn't do much testing beyond lots of goldfishing, and as a result, I did poorly.  The deck I tested with most, I top 8ed with.  The other tournaments I was trying some experimental stuff, and I hadn't tested enough, and my showings were painfully mediocre.

[Smmenen]

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

I take issue when people say something like this.  Given the sheer quantity of statements I make about magic in the last two years on the drain, SCG, and MTG.com, if you truly disagree with me on most things, that is quite an astonishing feat given the banalty of many of the things I assert.

[Zherbus]

On Meandeck, we keep a tight circle of who we test with for newer ideas. I play type 1 about twice a week for testing. I play Standard/Block about twice a week, as well as 1-2 drafts a week. Much of my testing is against Teammates on MWS since the times I can play are so sporatic (I only play standard on MODO and do much of my drafting there too), but if I can get out and play someone face-to-face, I will.

[Kasuras]

I read TMD about every day to keep track of the current "global" metgame and play an hour a day versus mws randoms to keep my "skills" up and testing new decks, although I should really find another way for the latter because mws isn't that much of a place where all the good players hang out.

I read other Dutch sites too and hang out in MTG IRC channels, although none of them are dedicated to T1; mostly to either t2 or casual.

Finally, I go to my local library every friday and saturday for trading, drafting, social stuff and of course playing t1 with the few players of the many players around who play t1.

Going to that library and reading the Dutch sites also gives me a bit of understanding of the current t2 metagame.

I currently play t1 just because its the format that I enjoy the most, and I'm planning on attending Eindhoven in the near future for the tourey there.


Testing is really important in my opinion. A month ago, I didn't test at all safe for the testing in that library. The only knowledge of the "global" metagame I had was from TMD. Now that I play on MWS, I think my skills have increased and my knowledge can have solid arguments from playtesting.

Playing with good players is probably the best way to increase your own skills and test decks.

[Mixing Mike]

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.

I think this is the biggest point raised yet.  It doesn't really matter how much you test, it's all about how good and accurate the results you're getting are.  This is where playskill comes into play as a factor.  In general, the better player will win, unless their deck cannot ever beat what's across the table from them.

When you were learning (not talking to the really seasoned players here) about 3-4 years ago, what happened when you met new people to play against?  You probably lost a lot at first, then you started to split games, then you started to beat them consistantly.  Then you reach a plateau in a sense until you find the next group of people above the ledge you're stuck on, and then it happens all over again.

[Hi-Val]

When discussing people who do well with decks, it brings up what I like to call the "Only Nixon can go to China" theory. That is, a deck's creator (or afficionado), no matter how complex of a deck or how bad it is in the metagame, can do well with it even if the odds are against them simply because they know the deck inside and out. For example, Travis Hopkins has played Miracle Gro for the past God knows how many years and even if it isn't hot in the metagame, he's been playing it enough to know exactly what to do.

The longer you play a deck in testing and in tournaments, you realize the hidden stuff in the deck and flesh out strategies against entire archetypes. There's a gulf between PTW and a random Fish player, and this is because of the time and effort that PTW has put into testing and playing it.

[The Atog Lord]

Hi-Val, I agree with you. The example that comes to mind is JJ Storrs with Enchantress. Every season he puts up great results with the deck, and no one else can make it do anything worthwhile. This illustrates that decks are oftentimes not hard to learn, but very very difficult to master. Playtesting a lot, often over a period of time, is required to get to the 'master' level with a deck.

Yesterday someone told me that Control Slaver was inconsistent. I think the statements "Affinity is easy to play" and "Control Slaver is inconsistent" are the result of a lack of proper testing, and the understanding that follows from that testing.

[Zherbus]

Hi-Val, I agree with you. The example that comes to mind is JJ Storrs with Enchantress. Every season he puts up great results with the deck, and no one else can make it do anything worthwhile. This illustrates that decks are oftentimes not hard to learn, but very very difficult to master. Playtesting a lot, often over a period of time, is required to get to the 'master' level with a deck.

Yesterday someone told me that Control Slaver was inconsistent. I think the statements "Affinity is easy to play" and "Control Slaver is inconsistent" are the result of a lack of proper testing, and the understanding that follows from that testing.

Ditto for me if you substitute other decknames with "4cControl/Keeper". It was always a safe bet for me since I knew I could play it very well. Now that I've put developing 4cC on the backburner, It's easy to see how other decks nuances present themselves.

Going back to Rich's Affinity example - that's really the perfect example. It may not seem like sacrificing artifacts to make Ravager fatter is very hard, but there's lots of little things that you can miss that win/lose you games. I think that goes for most decks and that making claims on the basis of passing knowledge of an archetype is doomed to be flawed.

Experience (any format) is the most underrated advantage or hinderance that I know of in magic.

[Bram]

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?

That's 4 (related) questions. I'll answer them one at a time:

1. Yes.
2. I have limited time available. I like playing Magic, but I like playing magic at tournaments better. Or rather: I like doing well at tourneys, which means I have to playtest. Because of the aforementioned limited time, I tend to playtest almost exclusively when a tourney is approaching.
3. Not relevant.
4. Because I lack the time.

[jpmeyer]

I personally find it very easy to see how matchups will play out in my head.  What I find the most useful in testing is finding out how games go when everything does not go according to plan, because this can tell you when you needs add specific cards to get a job done or if you can get by simply by using the cards that you already have in a different way.

Using a non-Type 1 example, Extended Ravager decks often use cards like Meddling Mage and Kami of Ancient Law to stop Energy Flux, but while playing it for a little bit, I noticed that after getting a hand without one of those cards, I was still able to pull out the game because I could use City of Traitors to keep Ravager around for the two turns more that I needed.

[bebe]

This past weekernd a few Team Rogue Canucks got together. Razor ( Ray M.) has been playing Parfait that is heavily metagamed for Toronto and his record against control and workshop has been quite good. He had tested against a very tight U/r Phid deck ( heavily meta gamed for Workshop and combo) as his control variant with a seventy-five percent win ratio. So I picked up the U/r Phid and beat the Parfaot deck three straight games. We switched decks and then I beat the U/r Phid deck three games straight with Parfait. I'm not a better player than Ray. However, I am intimately familiar with blue control. Ray is not. So test results can get skewed very easily.
We tested Belcher heavily and lost the first tournament we entered and went undefeated in the second. The difference? A different team member piloted the deck. In this case I lost with the deck and another won with it. I have always hated playing combo and I think I have a psychological block playing these decks although I've won with Rector/Trix and Dragon in the past. These days I'll never win with a pure combo deck because I hate playing them. I always make a mental mistake. I rarely make the same mistakes playing aggro-control or control. The other team member thrives on combo decks.  
Testing is important. But the results of testing can be quite different from your results at a tournament. Not everyone can play like Steve and top four with a different arch type every tournament. This requires time and dedication that many just cannot devote to the game.

[Ifflejink]

Whenever I get the chance to do actual playtesting, I take it. However, this is very rare, as there are very few good Magic players in my area. The only time that I can get any real play in is during tournaments, when the better players are around. And even then these tournaments only happen every month or so.

[pinoy_tech]

I tend to be a last minute playtester, but this only holds true to the weekly T1 tournies that I attend. When a larger tournament, or to say, a better prize structured tournament rolls around, I will playtest my deck against a gauntlet for the predicted metagame. Though sadly, its quite hard to get playtesting in as I work full time at the hospital. I usually always playtest w/ my brother, as the other magic players in town are "casual" players and do not take the game as seriously as my brother and I.

[raye]

I, for the most part, never have tested and also do not really intend to. I used to play every weekend in small regular events and playing was enough learning and improving. Now that I rarely play, I have even less incentive. I understand I should but I lack the motivation to playtest.

[Lou]

I just got back into type one within the last few months, mainly thanks to SCG 3 being in Chicago and it giving me an excuse to go back home.  My roomate and I both brainstormed over what budget decks we could use to take to the tournement that would not cost us a lot of money seeing as how a. we didn't have much money to invest in type 1, and b. we did not yet have the knowledge to make an educated choice of what was good in the meta and what deck we would enjoy playing.  I chose FCG and he chose Mono U/splash white due to Oath.  After proxying up some of what I read were the better decks and the such, to see what I would need in the board and just to learn how to play all the matchups, I became hooked and remembered just what I was missing from back in the day.  The testing not only helped me to learn the type one metagame relativly quickly, but it reintroduced me to some of the older cards I forgot about, and introduced me to cards that I missed out on during one of the many times I have quit the game.  So I guess my answer is yes, I test type one on regular basis.  It is so important to play test not only your deck of choice, but also the other decks in the meta so that you know what to expect in that match up, and playing the different decks just makes you a better magic player because you are seeing more than one angle.  It is crucial, I think, to have someone who is as stoked as you are to test though, because gold fishing and the like just doesn't get it done.

[mainmanmazz]

I find that all I play (bar drafting and sealed) is type 1. However, there are many instances that I would not call "testing". On the whole I do the majority of playtesting about a week or so before the tournament. This has now increased as a friend of mine cannot play in our regular tournament because he drafts, so we play serious games with sideboarding all the time

[effang]

i would love...
but i even find difficulty on MWS or appr...

going to the public channel and playing all these vintage players throwing around their isamaru's hurts my brain.

are there any dedicated channels where the quality of the players is a given? if i could find one, i would be testing much more.

[BigMac]

I like testing but dont have time to test very much. So i goldfish a lot.

The problem with goldfishing however is that its very hard to goldfish a control deck. Combo is easy to goldfish so i am an accomplished comboplayer, knowing how to get by counters and trinispheres to an extend.

But for me still the best place to spar is during a tournament. A tourny draws out the best in me. When people show up with surprising cards, or solutions i hadnt seen or thought of yet it actually pushes me to find solutions right away or think about it during the rest of the week. Big advantage for me is that we have a reasonably active type 1 group and relatively many tourny's close by (2-3 hours drive tops) So things i come accross 1 week i can better the next.

Biggest plus for me is that it keeps me on my toes. I read a lot, write a lot, hope to get feedback a lot and actually watch discussions. Somebody here said to study an hour every day is doing him good. I have to agree on that, reading about decks and discussions give you a better understanding of the mechanics of a deck so you can actually devise a strategy to defeat it with your own deck.

When i make a new deck i make sure i test it before bringing it to a tourny. That is where my friends come in. Then the actual testing will show what weaknesses i still have to work on. And sometimes to just throw the idea out the window.

So in the end testing and reading is good, but actual tourny for me is best as that is the real test.

[doomhed]

we usually playtest as a team for about a month before larger T1 events, and about a week or 2 before smaller ones. this is in addition to weekly T1 events. our testing soemtimes involves 4 to 6 hour sessions of playtesting.

[Berserk]

I'm not able to test much in person, so I often turn to Magic-League.com to test and whatnot. The players there as a whole are a fairly competent bunch. Many well-seasoned Magic veterans and all that. You'll get your fair share of scrubs as you will anywhere else, but I've found it to be a great way to follow what new decks are rising to the top and what to watch out for in real life.

[DavidHernandez]

Smmenen said:

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

This was in response to someone saying that they don't like to test...they just like to play...I'm quoting this because Smmenen is right-on here. If you just want to "play", then I hope to meet you across the table someday too, because I will be better prepared than you. Preparation wins matches.

Testing is critical, and it's not the same as goldfishing. For me, "testing" involves pulling out several stacks of cards that have the potential of earning a slot in my deck list, and then trying those cards in the deck. Taking notes on which cards made a "difference" during simulated play is very important.

This can be very time consuming because a single card may not make a difference, but combined with another card becomes golden.

Using a tool like Magic Workstation (MWS) is also very important. You should have a gauntlet of decks pre-built in MWS that you play against with the deck you are testing. This will help you decide which cards in your stack make the cut into the final list.

I wish I had more time to test, because (to me) this is an important key to successful tournament play.

Dave.

[Triple_S]

It is a cliche, but failure to prepare is preparing to fail.  Playtesting is a vital part of having success in an competitive tournament.  It is not a coincidence that the same people appear in most large tournament t8s.

[NicolaeAlmighty]

That is a bit of a cliche, but its so true... as most cliches are. I find that about 6-8 hours of playtesting the day before comes in handy. Thats not counting the obvious weeks of mini tourney testin before the big one... Preparation rocks.