|
|
|
oshkoshhaitsyosh
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2014, 12:25:09 pm » |
|
Sweet cast fellas
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Team Josh Potucek
|
|
|
|
Smmenen
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2014, 07:02:21 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
evouga
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2014, 07:40:33 pm » |
|
Excellent podcast as always.
I have to say I'd be pretty upset if I lost a match and found out later I had been playing against a team of other people. To a slightly lesser extent, it annoys me when opponents F6 but refuse to concede in the face of Vault+Key and a clearly lost game state, on the off chance that I will somehow run out of time. One can make a distinction between honorable play, and what is allowed by the client.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Smmenen
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2014, 07:44:12 pm » |
|
Excellent podcast as always.
I have to say I'd be pretty upset if I lost a match and found out later I had been playing against a team of other people. To a slightly lesser extent, it annoys me when opponents F6 but refuse to concede in the face of Vault+Key and a clearly lost game state, on the off chance that I will somehow run out of time. One can make a distinction between honorable play, and what is allowed by the client.
I wonder how many share that view. I wouldn't be upset of a bunch of people were strategizing on the other side. The trade off is that that kind of deliberation consumes time. And, partly because I think deck choice matters so much in Vintage. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kalisia
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2014, 02:11:52 pm » |
|
Excellent podcast as always.
I have to say I'd be pretty upset if I lost a match and found out later I had been playing against a team of other people. To a slightly lesser extent, it annoys me when opponents F6 but refuse to concede in the face of Vault+Key and a clearly lost game state, on the off chance that I will somehow run out of time. One can make a distinction between honorable play, and what is allowed by the client.
I wonder how many share that view. I wouldn't be upset of a bunch of people were strategizing on the other side. The trade off is that that kind of deliberation consumes time. And, partly because I think deck choice matters so much in Vintage. Guys, to lose against Time Vault + Key when you were winning on the board, just because you couldn't counter this stupid combo, is by far more annoying than just having to wait a kill when you assembled the combo and when the opponent doesn't want to concede. Time Vault + Key is a virtual kill, if you want to avoid having to face an opponent who doesn't want to concede to this combo, change your kill  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 02:15:23 pm by kalisia »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
fsecco
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2014, 03:09:18 pm » |
|
I find this annoying on MTGO. Going infinite with Magus/Helm/Top, Salvagers/Lotus/Spellbomb or Vault/Key is a lot clunkier than IRL, because of the clock. I despise opponents that don't concede to the infinite - unless they really think I have no kill conditions in my the deck anymore, which never happens.
Not conceding to Vault/Key is less annoying, since it's easy to do the moves every turn and just win anyway. But there should be some kind of gentleman's rule on infinite combos. Or at least a way in game to macro them or something like that...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
hashswag
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2014, 01:03:38 pm » |
|
I find this annoying on MTGO. Going infinite with Magus/Helm/Top, Salvagers/Lotus/Spellbomb or Vault/Key is a lot clunkier than IRL, because of the clock. I despise opponents that don't concede to the infinite - unless they really think I have no kill conditions in my the deck anymore, which never happens.
Not conceding to Vault/Key is less annoying, since it's easy to do the moves every turn and just win anyway. But there should be some kind of gentleman's rule on infinite combos. Or at least a way in game to macro them or something like that...
Bactgudz wrote a really good tutorial on automating the Salvagers combo here. I haven't tried it myself, but, assuming it works, maybe it should be stickied somewhere? Seems an important thing for modo vintage players to know before they immediately discount the deck completely due to the clock. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
fsecco
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2014, 01:08:25 pm » |
|
I find this annoying on MTGO. Going infinite with Magus/Helm/Top, Salvagers/Lotus/Spellbomb or Vault/Key is a lot clunkier than IRL, because of the clock. I despise opponents that don't concede to the infinite - unless they really think I have no kill conditions in my the deck anymore, which never happens.
Not conceding to Vault/Key is less annoying, since it's easy to do the moves every turn and just win anyway. But there should be some kind of gentleman's rule on infinite combos. Or at least a way in game to macro them or something like that...
Bactgudz wrote a really good tutorial on automating the Salvagers combo here. I haven't tried it myself, but, assuming it works, maybe it should be stickied somewhere? Seems an important thing for modo vintage players to know before they immediately discount the deck completely due to the clock. Very nice to get to know new shortcuts for these kind of things. But my MTGO client isn't what I could call "fast" - I have to be really quick not to go to clock normally. Bomberman is clearly not an option for me with this client and 25min matches =/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Samoht
Adepts
Basic User
Posts: 1392
Team RST
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2014, 01:33:36 pm » |
|
I find this annoying on MTGO. Going infinite with Magus/Helm/Top, Salvagers/Lotus/Spellbomb or Vault/Key is a lot clunkier than IRL, because of the clock. I despise opponents that don't concede to the infinite - unless they really think I have no kill conditions in my the deck anymore, which never happens.
Not conceding to Vault/Key is less annoying, since it's easy to do the moves every turn and just win anyway. But there should be some kind of gentleman's rule on infinite combos. Or at least a way in game to macro them or something like that...
Bactgudz wrote a really good tutorial on automating the Salvagers combo here. I haven't tried it myself, but, assuming it works, maybe it should be stickied somewhere? Seems an important thing for modo vintage players to know before they immediately discount the deck completely due to the clock. That's not very automated or fast. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Char? Char you! I like the play.
-Randy Bueller
I swear I'll burn the city down to show you the light.
The best part of believe is the lie
|
|
|
|
Cpkrug
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2014, 11:06:57 am » |
|
Great podcast! Always glad to see a new one come up in the queue!
As many of us, I am new to MTGO but I am really liking the experience! The worst part of the program (that I have experienced) is the clunkyness of flusterstorm. It has only come up a couple times, but it can be really nerve racking trying to counter a flusterstorm with a flusterstorm, or trying to counter multiple spells with a single flusterstorm. I probably will just get better at it, but should that be the solution from Wizards? Just get better at our bad system?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thecrav
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2014, 02:55:07 pm » |
|
Great podcast! Always glad to see a new one come up in the queue!
As many of us, I am new to MTGO but I am really liking the experience! The worst part of the program (that I have experienced) is the clunkyness of flusterstorm. It has only come up a couple times, but it can be really nerve racking trying to counter a flusterstorm with a flusterstorm, or trying to counter multiple spells with a single flusterstorm. I probably will just get better at it, but should that be the solution from Wizards? Just get better at our bad system?
In my second match ever, my opponent lol'd in chat at me when I flusterstormed my own flusterstorm.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Instead of tearing things down we should calmly explain our opinions. |
|
|
|
sirgog
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2014, 12:07:59 am » |
|
Loving listening to this.
On the poker questions near 50 minutes in, I play poker as well, and definitely use outs calculations in MTGO.
For instance, if my opponent casts Tinker, and I recognise that I can only win if I find a way to deal with a Blightsteel Colossus on my next turn, and I know my outs are Dack Fayden x2, Burning Wish x1, Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, or a Yawgmoth's Will or the deck's one remaining Snapcaster Mage to use the Imperial Seal in my graveyard, I'll quickly calculate an estimate as to what those odds are before allowing the Tinker to resolve. If I'm holding Wheel of Fortune, those odds are pretty good.
I don't use external programs, just mental arithmetic (whereas in poker I use memorized odds to make this process faster).
The other factor of note is that online poker bluffing skills are a real thing on MTGO. Very, very careful choice of when to delay can often tell a false story of your planned lines of play that can fool your opponent, but you need to be good at it, and do your bluff at a very carefully thought out time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Methuselahn
Full Members
Basic User
Posts: 1051
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 30, 2014, 04:09:42 pm » |
|
I like your podcasts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Metman
|
|
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2014, 09:34:42 pm » |
|
I like your podcasts.
What he said. I don't play MtGO but I liked the analysis of the intricacies and differences in reading an opponent. I've had some interesting experiences and perspectives playing poker though. Like it was said earlier, many of the same tells apply to online poker as do MtGO. Keep up the good work you two. I haven't missed one yet. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MaximumCDawg
Full Members
Basic User
Posts: 2172
|
|
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2014, 01:31:35 pm » |
|
I like your podcasts.
What he said. I don't play MtGO but I liked the analysis of the intricacies and differences in reading an opponent. Pssh. I just tell opponents that my hand contains Force of Will and a blue card at all times. Even when I have one card in my hand. Sometimes, it's true! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The Atog Lord
|
|
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2014, 04:06:08 pm » |
|
differences in reading an opponent I've been struggling a bit with this myself. In real life, against most opponents, I can read them and "see" their hand. In MODO, however, I can't do that at all. It actually makes playing control decks much more difficult, and is a factor I hadn't even considered before starting on MODO. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Academy: If I'm not dead, I have a Dragonlord Dromoka coming in 4 turns
|
|
|
|
yugular
|
|
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2014, 01:52:56 am » |
|
Great episode as always! mtgo is different than paper magic, but they are both great.
When can we expect KTK set review?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Smmenen
|
|
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2014, 07:39:19 pm » |
|
Great episode as always! mtgo is different than paper magic, but they are both great.
When can we expect KTK set review?
Well, we recorded it this week, so hopefully early next week, I'd estimate. Yes, we definitely tried to illustrate how Magic Online is not simply superficially different from paper Magic, but strategically and tactically so. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MTGFan
|
|
« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2014, 09:44:04 am » |
|
A bit late, but...
I really enjoyed listening to the discussion about differences between online and offline play. As someone who has mostly played online for the course of his Magic life, I have found my particular play style and player strengths to shine in the online setting while being minimized in cardboard tournaments, and for many of the reasons that you explained in your podcast.
Cardboard Magic tournaments seem to reward a particular player who makes rapid, but mostly correct, decisions whereas online Magic rewards the meticulous thinker who makes careful decisions at the expense of maximizing his time. The nature of the online platform allows a player to focus exclusively on the decisions of the game and completely ignore both outside distractions and non-strategic elements of Magic.
Additionally, tests of manual dexterity (such as shuffling and card handling) are entirely absent from online play. As someone who is very clumsy and slow while shuffling cards, this is a huge difference in the two platforms, as shuffling skill is completely irrelevant in online Magic while fast, effective shuffling is a huge boon to the paper tournament player.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
