I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Splitting is just practical in a game with as much variance as MtG.
Though yeah, reporting it as a 3-0 when both players were likely not taking it as seriously is kind of silly.
This set will be drafted for a month at most. Two drafts lets you see quite a few different archetypes. Also I have seen very little discussion about MH1 draft so any little bit is appreciated (though there wasn't must to learn from this other then Battle Screech and Man'o'war are bombs which... duh hahaha)
'Seeing' an archetype one or two times doesn't equate to much. You need to see several iterations of an archetype to make an evaluation of it. Limited evaluation just falls apart with small sample sizes.
You can't see that many iterations of an archetype in a set that lasts a month, where drafts are 25$ and you can't draft on Arena. You basically have to stitch together an analysis based on hearsay and random small samples. Point is not to be a punk to folks that are talking about their experiences, even if its not "statistically significant".
Drafts of Horizons are $10 or 100 play points on Modo. Many of us have already done dozens of them. With a 2-1 record paying your entry fee back, it’s not hard to do many drafts on little investment.
Excuse me for calling this article out for what it is: useless.
I understand that many people won’t draft the set as much as they would a standard set, that doesn’t make this article any better. The correct move here is to not write anything at all, or to play more drafts (Likely on Modo) to actually learn the format. Author was just lazy.
Hmm point me to virtually any articles or discussions about Modern Horizons Limited. Literally all the discussions about it are from when folks had ZERO drafts in. It's Core Set 2020 spoiler season, that is going to take up all the bandwidth and I don't see tons of you MODO folks doing write ups
I understand your point. But a dearth of content doesn't suddenly make a small sample size useful. You still can't extrapolate conclusions about a format from 6 rounds. Implying that changes because of alternatives isn't logically sound.
The solution to this is to just go draft on your own and make your own conclusions. It doesn't suddenly give weight to this article. This goes for any other content made from zero experience. The only difference is that those articles are usually tilted appropriately 'First Impressions' or whatever, not 'Lessons learned' as if we can draw conclusions from a prerelease of all things.
Lessons from *two* drafts? Who is looking at two drafts and drawing any kind of conclusion about anything, good or bad?
Sameer Merchant, I guess.
Good answer.
Someone who doesn't understand magic, limited, or both. Or has a very inflated sense of self-worth. Either way this was a weird article lol.
Ah, but you see, they were *3-0* drafts, so clearly the author is better than any of us and we should listen.
Honestly I think the worst part is he wasn't even 3-0, he just went 2-0 and played a match for fun to see who'd win after he split lol
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Splitting is just practical in a game with as much variance as MtG. Though yeah, reporting it as a 3-0 when both players were likely not taking it as seriously is kind of silly.
Yeah no hate to splitting at all, the point I was making was that in a game after split players are much looser.
Agreed.
Yo chill out, its just some rando talking about MH1 limited haha
Yeah I know it's just weird it's being published on mtggoldfish
This set will be drafted for a month at most. Two drafts lets you see quite a few different archetypes. Also I have seen very little discussion about MH1 draft so any little bit is appreciated (though there wasn't must to learn from this other then Battle Screech and Man'o'war are bombs which... duh hahaha)
'Seeing' an archetype one or two times doesn't equate to much. You need to see several iterations of an archetype to make an evaluation of it. Limited evaluation just falls apart with small sample sizes.
You can't see that many iterations of an archetype in a set that lasts a month, where drafts are 25$ and you can't draft on Arena. You basically have to stitch together an analysis based on hearsay and random small samples. Point is not to be a punk to folks that are talking about their experiences, even if its not "statistically significant".
Drafts of Horizons are $10 or 100 play points on Modo. Many of us have already done dozens of them. With a 2-1 record paying your entry fee back, it’s not hard to do many drafts on little investment. Excuse me for calling this article out for what it is: useless. I understand that many people won’t draft the set as much as they would a standard set, that doesn’t make this article any better. The correct move here is to not write anything at all, or to play more drafts (Likely on Modo) to actually learn the format. Author was just lazy.
Hmm point me to virtually any articles or discussions about Modern Horizons Limited. Literally all the discussions about it are from when folks had ZERO drafts in. It's Core Set 2020 spoiler season, that is going to take up all the bandwidth and I don't see tons of you MODO folks doing write ups
I understand your point. But a dearth of content doesn't suddenly make a small sample size useful. You still can't extrapolate conclusions about a format from 6 rounds. Implying that changes because of alternatives isn't logically sound. The solution to this is to just go draft on your own and make your own conclusions. It doesn't suddenly give weight to this article. This goes for any other content made from zero experience. The only difference is that those articles are usually tilted appropriately 'First Impressions' or whatever, not 'Lessons learned' as if we can draw conclusions from a prerelease of all things.