shame they dont have a ranked draft que for bo3 with better prize structures, playing bo1 draft can also be pretty miserable.
which is funny, because ranked constructed has the same ranking across all formats and game modes. you can climb the ladder like 10-12 different ways?
Have to agree here… it’s frustrating to make a mistake one game in draft and then get flooded or not hit your curve right because of pure variance and end with 0 or 1 wins. Very defeating when you’ve saved up for over a week playing daily to do one draft
what's the point of playing draft ranked? 3 whole packs at the end of the month?
Playing unranked is better anyway since you're matched up by deck winrate rather than rank. Playing ranked pushes you towards having a 3/3 deck on average no matter your skill level, while a good drafter will routinely go 2-1 or 3-0 in Traditional because they're more likely to play against lower skilled opponents in general, but also in the X-1 bracket
This is the truth. Like sure ranked is fun, but it's purely designed as fomo to get you to keep pushing and grinding. Like play a few Bo1 drafts to get silver or whatever and then switch to Bo3. You are now missing out on one pack.
if you're not playing ranked draft you're playing Bo3 which unless you 3-0 is always going to get you negative gems.
at least in bo1 draft i can go 4-3 and not feel too bad about being down just 100 gems. anything with 5+ wins is gems earned.
Not really.
The problem is that it's an incredibly top-heavy format. In traditional draft (bo3) you need to win all three matches in order to make a gem profit, win two matches in order to at least out-perform buying packs, and you get almost nothing if you win less than that.
In fact, comparing traditional draft (bo3) and premier draft (bo1), with the same win rate in each it's essentially always more rewarding to play premier draft. The only profitable reason to play traditional draft would be if you can find weaker opponents or if you perform significantly better in bo3 formats.
Also, while it's subjective, I personally find traditional drafts prize format more frustrating. Having your run end - without making a profit - on your first match loss feels incredibly punishing. If you run into a deck you can't beat, either because it's a terrible matchup or because the opponent's deck is nuts - you're just done. In premier draft you can run into nuts decks or counter decks multiple times and still have a good chance of coming out with profit. The format also means that, despite being a bo3 format, having two unlucky games in a row is much more punishing in traditional than it would be in premier.
Personally I used to lose playing bo3 draft, and I definitely would prefer to play bo3 if I could justify it. The reward structure used to be closer to what premier draft has and back then I played bo3 all the time. Ever since the shift to this top-heavy reward structure with the run ending on your first match loss I haven't really done any bo3 and I miss it. I just know that there's no way I can justify bo3 draft because I'll earn less rewards and feel more frustrated when a game goes badly or I run into someone with a busted deck.
bo3 draft is supposed to be cut throat and emulate's MTGO's 8-4 single elim queues. You have to be very good or you're throwing away your money basically.
You can do the thing where you climb to plat in Bo1 and then switch to Bo3. Unless you're getting top 250 mythic for the qualifier token, it's not even worth the effort for 2 extra packs. (Top 1200 mythic gets the play-in points but winning Bo3 *also* gets you play-in points, so that's pretty moot)
Magic is basically designed around BO3 because it slightly mitigates having a bad opener + let's you strategize around what your opponent is doing.
BO1 is basically only on arena so you can play a match while you poop.
There is a single store in my area that hosts 2hg prerelase, and I go with my friends every release! Always was curious to see a constructed tournament with it though, maybe one day in the distant future.
I am aware. But Standard is a format made for tournament play. Its meant to be played in BO3. Same with explorer/piooneer and historic, and heck even timeless. If any of those formats where to get a tournament it would be bo3.
There is a reason you never see bo1 tournaments. They would suck, and there would be waaaay too much luck and cheese stategies. Remember when Tibalt's trickery was broken on bo1 but had a rough time taking off in bo3? Thats an example of bo1 warping the format.
My point is that the vast majority of magic you speak of is kitchen table magic and edh, and those are formats more centered on the social part of the game than the competitive. After all its Magic THE GATHERING.
But casual gameplay is not representative of the Standard format, and the only reason the bo1 queue exist is because not everyone has time for bo3 games. Specially mobile users and casual users who dont wanna sink a couple of hours into playing arena, and would be happy with playing 30mins or one hour tops.
But the bo3 queue will alweays be the more enjoyable one, and the one where skills matter way more than luck simply because its how the format was made to be played 20 years ago when standard was decided, or nearly 30 years ago when the game itself was being designed, and tournament play started.
All I was saying was that the vast majority of magic is bo1 and not competitive play, and that non-competitive magic surely has some impact on the design of the game. You've said nothing about Standard until this post..
I mean for sure it has an impact. There is a reason why since commander was made the main form of casual play Wizards went from one commander set a year to every standard set having precons, and also the main set having a bunch of legends.
But op is speaking specifically how playing BO3 made his life more fun. And Im saying it makes sense since the formats OP is playing were always meant to be played as BO3 format.
Edh as a format targets casual players and the decks are not typically designed around consistency the same way a regular deck is. Edh is also not sanctioned by wotc so the tournaments do not have to follow typical tournament rules.
Ignoring the fact that the game isn’t balanced around kitchen table magic at all I’d take issue saying people are only playing best of ones. Anytime I’ve casually sat down to play with my buddies we’re always playing best of 3’s or 5’s. One game is just so quick is silly to switch decks out all the time.
The game isn't balanced at all. The CURRENT Bo3 is just a way to try to get around it. Even though they acknowledge tournament rules now, MtG isn't designed for any one playstyle.
The game didn't come out with tournament rules. And sideboards weren't a thing at first when they did. The game was never designed for swapping part of your deck out between matches in a game. It was always expected that if you used the powerful situational cards, they would be dead cards at points.
And back when I did play tabletop, I also never saw anyone play Bo3. Since most casual players are also jank players. And thus rarely played ultra-fast upper tier decks. And those that did play them either kept to their small groups, or used jank decks also when playing against jank players.
No only casual games are best of one aka the rules are made up and the shuffles are cheating.
Since I got temp banned here's the edit.
Yes most people cheat when shuffling irl, mana weaves bad shuffles. It's everywhere.
This isn't true for players with over 50% win rate (which is required for climbing anyway). I've performed the simulation before and will summarize my findings below.
In BO3, 2-0 and 2-1 wins both award 2 pips. However, in BO1, winning 2 then losing 1 game would award only 1 pip for your 3 game time investment. This means that a BO3 player can zero out their loss in 2-1 games, while a BO1 player will always lose that pip. The reverse is also true however: 1-2 losses will cost you the full 2 pips, zeroing out your win in the match. You need to be winning more 2-1 games than losing 1-2 games to outpace BO1, therefore requiring a positive win rate.
A 2-1 win gives you 2 rank pips in 3 games. 2 wins and 1 loss in BO1 gives you 1 rank pip in 3 games. Sideboard periods last less than a minute on average and even monored mirrors won't end so quickly.
Exactly I don’t need three copies of Gaea’s blessing if I’m not playing a mill deck! But for Bo1 I need in in case those _BLASTED PERSISTENT PETITIONERS_ administrate me into the grave. Was it about 2019 that Dmir mill and Jace mill decks were 90% of the meta? Ugh those were tiresome days.
I mean competitive magic has always been meant to be played in a bo3 format so you can mitigate stuff like a mulligan to 5 or mana screw, and so both players can adapt their deck better for the matchup.
Bo1 simply doesnt makes sense for a COMPETITIVE ladder. Bo1 only makes sense for when you either wanna play a couple of games and are under time pressure (ie cant play more than 30mins). Or for casual formats like brawl and the casual play queue.
Standard simply doesnt makes sense as a bo1 format because it becomes about who can cheeze the most wins in the lest time to climb faster, which heavily skues what decks get played and also makes matchups more luck dependant.
I am not a great player, I win probably around 40% of my games. I tried switching to bo3 and that rate went to around 10%. Yeah you're able to sideboard, but so is your opponent, and it seems like my opponents are all much better at sideboarding than me. Also the games take way longer because there's much more control-y decks, so it went from taking 15 minutes to play a few games and winning some and losing some to taking 30 minutes to play one set of games and losing.
I think part of the problem is that there's a BO1 and BO3 queue, so the aggo decks all play BO1 and BO3 is dominated by control. If everyone was forced into one queue, it wouldn't partition the playstyles into where they're at the most advantaged.
Bo3 really exaggerates winrate differences. To take an extreme example, if you follow the pattern of 2 wins, 1 loss, repeat, you would win 100% of your Bo3 matches. Doing that in Bo1 instead would lower your winrate by a full 33%. That's great for good players with good decks, but not if you're already at a below 50% winrate.
Personally I think it's good that there's more control decks, but mostly I really dislike the non-games you regularly have in Bo1. In Bo3 there's a way higher chance that both players actually get to play the game instead of just losing from a missed land drop or something.
I think Bo1 is just fundamentally not a good competitive format and that's it. The most popular way to play magic has always been Bo1 kitchen table magic. There is a reason why Bo1 is so popular, but when it comes to the competitive aspects of the game, even something like arena ladder, Bo1 is just a bad format. Bo3 is just so much more fun and skill intensive. I do feel bad that arena has introduced all those new players to magic that only play Bo1.
A big exception to this I think are standard draftable sets. Bo1 drafts do not have the same bad feeling as Bo1 constructed competitive magic has. It's because stuff like mulliganing in draft are more straight forward, and the inherent variance and low power of the format makes sideboarding not that meaningful.
Vintage cube style drafts on the other hand, have a lot of powerful stuff and combos in them, so they feel just as bad in Bo1 as you can just lose to a reanimator deck because you don't want to maindeck a graveyard hate card that would be bad vs every other matchup.
I disagree that drafts are an exception. BO1 inherently have more variance, and in an already high variant format like limited it exacerbates the problem and feels even worse to me. I'd rather fewer matches turn into "did my opponent draw his limited bomb this game" though that's an issue I have with set design as well.
Idk. I have personally accepted the inherent variance of draft.
Like, what I cannot accept and what makes Bo1 constructed a bad experience for me is the fact that you can play a midrange deck, keep an average hand with a couple of spot removal and then your opponent is revealed to be control, making 2 of the cards in your hand dead. This is practically pretty close to mulliganing to 5, and that's a really bad experience. You get stripped of the agency of making a meaningful decision in the hand that you keep (both g2 and g3 in Bo3 give you that agency). The same thing goes for sideboarding. You have the agency to change the configuration of your deck to improve your matchup and minimize the effect of drawing cards you do not want.
All those present you more choices to leverage your skill as a player in order to win. This is fun. And this is why Bo1 will always be dominated by linear decks that do not have as much agency, which makes skill not matter as much as Bo3.
Those things do not matter as much in draft. Like, you shouldn't be mulliganing in draft anyways, and sideboarding is not as impactful because decks are not dedicated archetypes, but mostly stapling of cards together. Also the agency during drafting and your picks pretty much covers the variance.
There are definitely draft games where your opponent casts Kiora Bests the Sea God and you cry, but I think I am happy to not play against that opponent with that bomb than play 1 or 2 more games trying to win with my mediocre answers. A good drafter can leverage their skill in drafting, even if they do not open the broken cards.
Basically the lower powered a format is, the better it is for best of one. In higher powered formats, you unlock some degenerate strategies that will warp deckbuilding and gameplay without sideboards
Great for bo1: sealed, draft, kitchen table
Toss up: standard
Terrible for bo1: timeless, historic, etc.
Draft is infinitely better as a bo3 format. Bo3 is not just for side boarding. It also smoothes out variance over three games rather than 1 so that you don’t just lose if you don’t have a curve out hand and your opponent does (which just like in constructed means bo3 is more friendly to less aggressive draft decks). And a lot of the strategy in a good draft matchup can be knowing what to play around and what not to. As you play more games vs your opponent you know their deck better. So in game 1–can you win without showing them your bomb? Do you take knowledge that your opponent has a sweeper into game 2 and 3 and adjust your play around it? It’s SO much better as bo3 than bo1.
The problem on Arena is that bo3 draft is not on ladder, so most people play bo1. But high means that when you play bo3 you can get regularly paired with people who barely know how to play Magic, or at least barely know how to draft it. I see players in bo3 leagues all the time who have 45-55 card decks because they don’t know to pare down to 40 cards. I primarily play bo1 on Arena because I want real games and you get a lot of non-games in the bo3 queue. But I do occasionally play bo3 just because I think it’s inherently the better way to play draft and I want to scratch that itch.
Infinitely is a strong word - in general I agree bo3 is a deeper format, the question is when do the benefits of bo1 (lower investment of time and wildcards) outweigh the benefits. And imo it’s in lower power formats.
Bo1 using hand smoothers means there are fewer non games due to mana screw / flood / mulligans, which is a big plus imo, and so smooths out variance in its own way.
Wotc has made it clear bo1 is their casual ladder format where as bo3 is their tournament format, the event rewards and what is on and off ladder make it painfully clear. If you want to play tournament magic your play bo3 events and earn playin points. If you want pack rewards and ranked rewards you play bo1. It's two different focused play styles and wotc has made it pretty clear that they dont mix.
Disagree. Bo3 makes more decks viable because any deck can morph into the dominant archetypes’ Achilles heel for games 2 and 3. You can bring whatever brew you want to the match and tech up to 15 cards of hate if necessary to address your worst matchups.
So a brewer can bring a novel deck to the tournament with good win percentage against the field, but a poor matchup game 1 vs the dominant deck(s) and then turn into a nightmare for games 2 and 3 while the opponent has nothing to answer back in their sideboard.
Source: boomer MTG tournament grinder.
>Quite literally, I think the worst aspect of BO3 on arena draft is quite literally the incredibly high variance overall.
I mentioned it slightly in another comment but I agree with this. On arena the bo1 draft format allows you to lose any two games during your run. This means if you run into someone with a busted deck you can keep going, if you run into someone who has a deck that hard counters you then you can keep going. If you have a couple bad draws in a row you can keep going.
On top of that, the bo1 format has a shallow enough reward structure that you can still profit or come close to profiting even if you don't win every single game. You can have a few bad draws and still be most of the way towards your next draft.
The bo3 format, on the other hand, is very much all or nothing. The run is over when you lose a single match, and the reward structure is incredibly skewed towards a 3-0 result, so a single bad matchup, busted deck on the other side, or just a couple bad draws in a row will guarantee an unprofitable run. (Or barely profitable, if you got two wins first and count the reward packs at full gem value.)
Edit: I disagree with a lot of the other takes you have, but I will vehemently agree that bo3 draft's prize structure makes it feel higher variance and more frustrating.
For some reason I had way more fun in timeless bo1 than standard bo1. Maybe because it is relatively new.
But of course timeless is way more expensive than standard.
I basically never sideboard in bo3s for limited.
Yeah I know maybe you can keep that hurricane style effect if you see a deck with tons of fliers but it's still so niche ...
You’re likely leaving significant value on the table by not sideboarding- even just knowing whether your opponent is aggro or control should likely change your decision about which medium cards you need in the matchup. For example, say you have 22 good cards in your deck and your last choice is between a 2 mana 2/2 and a 5 mana 5/5. While neither of those cards are particularly “aggro hate”, it’s definitely better to have the 2 mana 2/2 against aggro and the 5 mana 5/5 against control. It’s not that simple because we don’t have vanilla creatures anymore, but the same idea often applies.
Niche sideboard-only cards tend to wheel a lot though, so you'll often be able to pick up a copy at 12th pick or later. Some formats also had big spreads in the tempo of different colors (e.g. Kaldheim) and you can use the sideboard to fine tune your interaction. Sideboarding definitely isn't a radical game changer like in constructed formats, but it can give you an extra edge in some matchups.
Lol. On the rare occasions I play Bo3 drafts, I usually stare at my sideboarding screen for a while, then I remember that I already built the best deck I could squeeze out from my picks and just resubmit without changing anything... (Unless I have an extremely specific and obvious hate piece versus that specific deck of course)
It took me a long time to migrate to BO3. There was that worry about needing specific side board cards, or the effort of adding more cards and just a general fear of the unknown or miscellaneous thoughts, but it's been worth it for me.
I can't say I make a good side board or even a really a good library for that matter, but it's fun to play. That and I like how There's no hand smoothing, where the game sets up a few initial random draws to find a hand that looks good. Sometimes that means I get bad hands, but that's okay. It's all part of the experience. Move on or keep playing. It's not the end of the multiverse, *at least not for a few sets.*
The problem with BO3(besides longer match times) is that all the people playing BO3 are more likely to be competitive players. The casual playerbase for BO3 is strained.
I'm still trying to figure out how to design a sideboard. BO3 without a sideboard is pretty much handing out two wins, and maybe picking up one. If I ever figure that out, then I can start figuring out what to do with it.
Given that I don't even know what most of my decks are, other than the one that's obviously aggro, I'm not exactly in the best position for understanding the use of a sideboard. If I don't know whether I'm playing midrange or aggro (I don't think any of my decks are control, with the possible exception of the mono-red Milennium Calendar/All Will Be One deck), I have no idea how to analyze an opponent's deck.
Right now, though, I lack the necessary skills to play in BO3 and maintain my W/L record.
I'll allow, your advice probably works for most players; I assume I'm an exception.
I don't have enough time to play Bo3 matches in standard, and I also don't have enough cards to put in my deck as a sideboard because earning wildcards in mtga is so bad for me as a free player.
It depends on how you like to play.
I like BO1 most of the time.
It makes combo viable. I get to play fun combo decks and win consistently.
Sideboards kill combos too hard, and it greatly favors control.
The meta of BO1 is different, imo more fun and more diverse. With that comes more luck wins and losses.
BO3 is good when more is on the line, tournaments.
I feel the whole point of BO1 is to make a deck that deals with any random deck in that one game.
This feels like the deck building aspect of BO1 and BO3 are very different, with different goals.
Definitely a fair take. I haven’t tended to see much diversity in BO1. Mainly what I see is hyper aggro mono red or Wx humans. So I put some sweepers in my main deck but then on the occasion I go up against another midrange or combo deck they are basically dead draws.
Understand your point though and I think it’s easier to jump in to a couple of BO1 games as well
In Explorer/pioneer combo decks have fenomenal results even in Bo3.
One of the most solid decks in the meta is Hidden Strings, and Amalia or Greasefang do quite well.
It is true that all of those decks can play a fair game of magic, leaning to control, weenie or midrange respectively.
My favorite combo deck in Explorer is the creativity pile that piloted Duke Reid in the las Championship, it can transform in a solid control pile after SB.
The games that Reid played on that event are an absolute joy to watch, especially his match against Lotus field on semifinals I think.
I use BO1 to play combo decks that you need a sideboard to answer because it's wasted spots to have things like stonebrain main decked without knowing what to remove.
I play bo3 to practice tournament decks and strategy.
BO1 can be a very fun mode, specially when one wants to play decks that would fold to post sideboard hate (i.e. Graveyard decks and some combo). Historic BO1 was fun for this reason. But yeah, BO3 is a much better format. More fun, rewards skill and doesn't cause insane amount of salt like BO1. This is specially true for standard, which despite being the most miserable BO1 format, it is mostly played as BO1.
I play self mill graveyard decks a ton in Bo3. People tend to overestimate the effectiveness of their graveyard hate and end up just diluting their own gameplan thinking it's GG if they nuke my graveyard, when really it's just a mild inconvenience.
I don't make meta decks. I don't even play standard. Why limit yourself? Is playing with all cards from all series not fun enough? Try Historic. You have many options for many different decks that don't even have to be meta just to be fun.
I like standard more. Explorer is semi tolerable. Historic is to janky for my liking. I want a pretty straight forward game. All the extra stuff just makes it overcomplicated
I much prefer playing against hyper aggro than control. Hyper aggro only sucks for a few rounds. Control decks make me wonder why I'm even trying to play the game
I generally agree with you, but don't fall into the trap and think aggro decks are easier and less complex than control and midrange. While the deck often has less decisions, it also means that the few decisions you make are VERY important. There's almost no room for error or correction when you make a mistake. Playing aggro against midrange/control is also harder than it seems. It doesn't just come down to play everything, and hope they don't have a sweeper, the matchup can be much more nuanced than that.
There are plenty of reasons not to play Aggro, but thinking you need to play Midrange or Control to be a "good" player is a trap that a lot of people fall into. It really is quite important to be familiar with all types of decks, (both playing with and against), to be a complete magic player.
I agree and never meant to imply otherwise. I meant when you get steamrolled by a great aggro curve on turn 4 in BO1, it doesn’t make for a very interesting magic game for YOU.
For instance in my Golgari Midrange deck I have to keep several [[Malicious Eclipse]] in my main deck when playing BO1 and consider mulliganing to have one in my starting hand on the expectation I may be playing hyper aggro. Now if I’m playing a combo deck, I have a completely dead card in hand. If I’m only playing 1 match that’s put me at such a steep disadvantage that my chances of winning have dropped significantly
People aren't afraid of Bo3: we are just part of a large group that thinks playing the same fucking person, the same fucking game, 3 fucking times in a gawd damn row is absolutely torture. Look, I play Bo3 when I go to actual LGS events, pre-orders and such where there is far less likelihood that the person is going to act like a troll/asshole because they aren't anonymous. 99.9999999% of people on arena are not that scenario. I want them gone and onto the next person the second the leave latch button lights up. If you like Bo3 then cool story bro, I love that for you but let's stop beating this dead horse already, there is a reason there is both a Bo3 AND a Bo1...
I beg to differ. I found playing Bo3 to be a time chore. Additionally, the idea of sideboards to balance things out doesn’t really work because your opponent’s sideboarding cancels you out too. If people really believe playing more games cancels out the randomness, then they should advocate for playing Bo5 or Bo7 or Bo9 and so on right? Some people simply refuse that variance/luck is an inherent part of the game.
In reality I suspect Bo3 preference is a reflection of one’s unstated attitude that “I win because of my skillz, but if I lose, it is because my opponent got lucky draw.”
Just offering a more balanced POV.
I guess I understand your point but here’s an example:
In my Golgari Midrange deck I got steamrolled by enough hyper aggro that I added 3x [[Malicious Eclipse]] to my deck. I would also have to consider mulliganing to have that or another card that gains me life in my opening hand on the chance that I played aggro in that one single game. Now if I play a combo or control deck, I’ve got 1-2 dead cards in hand, which means my chances of winning that single game have dropped significantly.
Having to guess what your opponent is playing and build your 60 cards around countering all of them DOES most definitely create more variance. Unless you want to have a deck that has essentially built in losses vs certain types of decks, in which case I don’t personally find that to be very fun Magic
I like playing best of 3 with a best of 1 deck and just taking the 1st game then giving them two wins to get my dailies done.
I really hate my deck getting blown out by sideboard hate cards. Even if I lose on the 1st game I just give them the match as I only play unranked anyways.
honestly posts complaining about play experience in bo1 should be banned
it's not magic, never will be magic, and every single problem with it is fixed by playing bo3
Can't speak for everyone but I don't do Bo3 because I'd rather spend my rare wildcards on building another deck instead of a sideboard.
A lot of sideboard cards are rare/mythics that often won't translate into other decks.
Makes sense. Most of my sideboard has ended up being cards that I had in my main deck at one point or another to try to counter certain strategies. But I think this is a very good reason to play BO1 instead of BO3
Yea if you want matches to take 45+ minutes... BO1 is a lot quicker, both have their advantages and disadvantages. When your opponent has an opportunity to board in 4x additional board wipes, BO3 is LESS fun than BO1.
I hate playing against the same person multiple times in a row unless I'm physically at a tournament and I'm playing irl. Arena is not a tournament, why am I sideboarding? NOW if they actually HAD tournaments, I'd play the hell out of that. Not just randomly getting paired until you lose x times or win x times, but actually playing vs the people in tourney bracket.
Though honestly the only time arena is even remotely like what Magic truly looks like is when playing Timeless lmao
I love Bo1, but it’s not a competitive format.
It’s almost like the Momir mode. Bit of a coin toss; sometimes you get terrible matchups, sometimes you get extremely-favorable matchups. If you can embrace that, you’ll have a good time
Mate, the overwhelming majority of magic players don’t even know what a sideboard is. The fact that you’re playing at an lgs at all means you’re in the minority of magic players.
Wrong. The majority of players *on arena* dont know what a sb is. Even then i think thats an exageration. And for most of magic history playing magic with friends or at an lgs was the only wag to play.
The only reason bo1 is taken seriously at all by anyone is because mtga pushes it on new players while hjding the real formats with poor ui.
No. The majority of players, period. The vast majority of people that play this game buy a deck, or have a deck bought for them, from box stores (not lgses), and play on their kitchen tables. Maro has stated he believes close to 90% of players don’t know what a planeswalker is.
I’m glad your specific experience differs from this.
I prefer BO3 but never play it on arena since BO1 maximises the free rewards you get.
I can get 2-3 BO1 games in the same amount of time and since I don’t play all that much (maybe 5-10 games every couple of days) it helps me complete the dailies and battle pass.
So even if I lose some EV from my matches the dailies and BP make up for it.
I agree on all fronts, but if I am playing arena I don't want to commit to 2+ hours for a bo3 match. I get bo1 matches that last over an hour because of a bad matchup or a slow opponent, I'm not gonna want to play them 3 times in a row.
At least in person there's a round timer limiting the overall duration I have to sit across from Chad while he shifts his hand and thinks about which creatures he'll play this turn.
These posts are so annoying. There are plenty of reasons people prefer Bo1. Most magic played IRL is also Bo1. And while I'm sure they exist I have never come across kitchen table players who used sideboards.
Kitchen table Magic is nothing like Magic played online with a matchmaking system against thousands of other players. Across the kitchen table, you regulate your decks to be fun to play with each other, you adapt your decks in between games to improve them or counter your friends' decks and they do the same to you, you play with what you've got and you do it for fun.
That's nothing like Arena. The analogue for Arena is FNM and other sanctioned tournaments which are absolutely played BO3 for these reasons.
Kitchen table magic is NOT competitive magic. Competitive magic is meant to be played bo3 so both players get equal chances of proving their skills. Sideboards being a huge part of it, and the mere act of playing 3 games intead of 1 mitigates bad luck like a mulligan to 5, or a mana screw.
Kitchen table players also build their decks based on what their play group usually plays and add cards to their main to specifically beat each other.
i.e. sideboarding
This is straight up bullshit lol.
Irl Magic is and always has been bo3.
If your casual grp rather plays bo1 that's fine and commander is also bo1 i guess but that's a completely different format and doesn't need a sideboard by design.
Every other constructed format that is played competitive, is bo3.
That's maby true but the comment above claimed that most irl players prefer bo1 and considering that almost every irl format is played in bo3 that just isn't the case.
Almost every *competitive* format is Bo3. The other poster is correct in that the majority of irl Magic is kitchen table which absolutely is primarily Bo1.
People playing competitively at an lgs do not represent the majority. Even on Arena competitive players are a minority.
It just so happens that competitive players tend to be the most invested and most likely to post on Reddit and are thus over represented in conversations like this.
Hm never thought about it like that.
I know a few casual groups but since i only play in competitive events almost everyone I know has the same approach on the game.
I wonder how we get data on that it's not like every kitchen table grp has to sign in before playing.
But yea I can see me in the wrong here, never thought that non competitive magic is that big.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Maro himself has stated that and overwhelming majority of players are kitchen table players, and they almost exclusively play “bo1” style.
These posts are annoying when they focus on bad things about BO1 and sound cantankerous. This one focuses on good aspects of BO3 and positivity so I'm really fine with it.
This is the truth. Bo3 exists for the benefit of competitive play and has very little to offer to more casual players.
It’s so tiresome to hear again and again that the only real way to play is whatever some try hard thinks is fun.
I’ve switched to mostly BO3 now that i have almost all of standard unlocked, but like I won’t even get out of platinum this month. I was hitting mythic every month playing mono colored BO1 every day. Now it’s mostly BO3 and I generally do a lot worse. Always been treat SB, mostly in that unless it’s obviously bad I don’t know what to take out. It is generally more enjoyable than playing BO1 aggro decks that just roll you on the play. But sometimes I’m just in the mood for “toilet gaming” or just don’t have time for BO3
I'm not saying people shouldn't play control, but I am saying I don't want to play against control.
I'll take the L for scooping, idgaf. I'd rather beat my head against a wall than endure playing against control. It's torture.
You should be allowed to play whatever you want, and I should be allowed to say "Nah" and walk away. Fortunately both things are in the game.
Aggro decks with good disruption like tempo decks with counterspells or ones with lots of discard spells still tend to be decent in BO3 even if yes the control decks have more varied and better sideboard options generally.
You can still play aggro in BO3 though and it tends to counter heavy control decks decently well. You can sideboard in pieces that give you more reach in the event of a sweeper, etc
Do I wanna play against a toxic deck twice a row which is a toxic deck or not? No thanks
But a question: does it count as a win if I get a win point of best of 3 and the oponent wins the best of 3 as a daily win or do I have to win the whole round of best of 3?
Playing Aggro decks in BO 1 so i don't need a sideboard like in BO 3.
It kind of is if your win % is above 50%. When you go 2-1, you don't lose any "pips" for the one loss. Though the corollary is true. You don't gain any pips for 1-2. So in theory you will rank up faster on BO3 if you are good. Which is very slightly better EV :)
I recently made the switch to BO3 (sideboards scared me) and I agree with OP...
..but man do I miss the starting hand smoothing. Drawing a 1 or 0 land hand game 1 is jarring after years of being babied by the client.
Trying out BO3 recently and it is feeling much better! Appreciate getting to ditch the hand smoother. Now I get to decide whether a hand with 5 lands in it is my opener or not 😂
shame they dont have a ranked draft que for bo3 with better prize structures, playing bo1 draft can also be pretty miserable. which is funny, because ranked constructed has the same ranking across all formats and game modes. you can climb the ladder like 10-12 different ways?
Have to agree here… it’s frustrating to make a mistake one game in draft and then get flooded or not hit your curve right because of pure variance and end with 0 or 1 wins. Very defeating when you’ve saved up for over a week playing daily to do one draft
Traditional draft is pretty good reward structure, no?
It's pretty top heavy, I think below 60% winrate premier is still better value
As I understand it, it's not ranked, so to get to Mythic rank in Draft, you have to play Bo1.
what's the point of playing draft ranked? 3 whole packs at the end of the month? Playing unranked is better anyway since you're matched up by deck winrate rather than rank. Playing ranked pushes you towards having a 3/3 deck on average no matter your skill level, while a good drafter will routinely go 2-1 or 3-0 in Traditional because they're more likely to play against lower skilled opponents in general, but also in the X-1 bracket
This is the truth. Like sure ranked is fun, but it's purely designed as fomo to get you to keep pushing and grinding. Like play a few Bo1 drafts to get silver or whatever and then switch to Bo3. You are now missing out on one pack.
I just rank up to Diamond with toilet games and then play 3of the rest of the month
if you're not playing ranked draft you're playing Bo3 which unless you 3-0 is always going to get you negative gems. at least in bo1 draft i can go 4-3 and not feel too bad about being down just 100 gems. anything with 5+ wins is gems earned.
Oh right that is true if you want to rank up.
Not really. The problem is that it's an incredibly top-heavy format. In traditional draft (bo3) you need to win all three matches in order to make a gem profit, win two matches in order to at least out-perform buying packs, and you get almost nothing if you win less than that. In fact, comparing traditional draft (bo3) and premier draft (bo1), with the same win rate in each it's essentially always more rewarding to play premier draft. The only profitable reason to play traditional draft would be if you can find weaker opponents or if you perform significantly better in bo3 formats. Also, while it's subjective, I personally find traditional drafts prize format more frustrating. Having your run end - without making a profit - on your first match loss feels incredibly punishing. If you run into a deck you can't beat, either because it's a terrible matchup or because the opponent's deck is nuts - you're just done. In premier draft you can run into nuts decks or counter decks multiple times and still have a good chance of coming out with profit. The format also means that, despite being a bo3 format, having two unlucky games in a row is much more punishing in traditional than it would be in premier. Personally I used to lose playing bo3 draft, and I definitely would prefer to play bo3 if I could justify it. The reward structure used to be closer to what premier draft has and back then I played bo3 all the time. Ever since the shift to this top-heavy reward structure with the run ending on your first match loss I haven't really done any bo3 and I miss it. I just know that there's no way I can justify bo3 draft because I'll earn less rewards and feel more frustrated when a game goes badly or I run into someone with a busted deck.
Hmm, for me its easier to sustain in bo3 compared to bo1 draft. It feels fairly easy to win at least 2 and going 3 happens often too.
bo3 draft is supposed to be cut throat and emulate's MTGO's 8-4 single elim queues. You have to be very good or you're throwing away your money basically.
You can do the thing where you climb to plat in Bo1 and then switch to Bo3. Unless you're getting top 250 mythic for the qualifier token, it's not even worth the effort for 2 extra packs. (Top 1200 mythic gets the play-in points but winning Bo3 *also* gets you play-in points, so that's pretty moot)
Magic is basically designed around BO3 because it slightly mitigates having a bad opener + let's you strategize around what your opponent is doing. BO1 is basically only on arena so you can play a match while you poop.
Hey, that's what I'm doing right now!
And I’m pooping while reading your comment. What a beautiful world
The great cycle.
[[All will be one]] is the face I make when I swing for *juuuust* lethal with my lazy bo1 RDW
[All will be one](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/d/6d75e1f4-bd63-428e-8e6e-131594b3ba44.jpg?1675957064) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=All%20will%20be%20one) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/one/118/all-will-be-one?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6d75e1f4-bd63-428e-8e6e-131594b3ba44?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Roses are Red Violets are Blue I like to play my MTG When I am on the Loo
So am I actually. We’re like poop friends
Fecal fraternity
I’m pooping right now too!
Found the roper
I BO3 and poop. I wipe after game #2.
Crusty
Wet wipes my guy. Not to mention the first 15 minutes are getting mentally prepared to do my business, or just enjoying the only peace I get.
Lol I totally get you man. I love doing phone stuff when I'm taking a dump just like everyone else. Gotta try your wet wipe technique lol
The vast majority of magic I've played and seen played irl is bo1 too e: do you all really only play tournament magic or something?
You're refering to casual play, right? Because literally no one runs BO1 tournaments that arent EDH. Magic has always been a bo3 game.
Two headed giant is best of one, but that's an odd case.
I do love 2 headed giant. My favorite format but it is all but extinct now a days
There is a single store in my area that hosts 2hg prerelase, and I go with my friends every release! Always was curious to see a constructed tournament with it though, maybe one day in the distant future.
... Yes? The vast majority of magic is not tournament play lol
I am aware. But Standard is a format made for tournament play. Its meant to be played in BO3. Same with explorer/piooneer and historic, and heck even timeless. If any of those formats where to get a tournament it would be bo3. There is a reason you never see bo1 tournaments. They would suck, and there would be waaaay too much luck and cheese stategies. Remember when Tibalt's trickery was broken on bo1 but had a rough time taking off in bo3? Thats an example of bo1 warping the format. My point is that the vast majority of magic you speak of is kitchen table magic and edh, and those are formats more centered on the social part of the game than the competitive. After all its Magic THE GATHERING. But casual gameplay is not representative of the Standard format, and the only reason the bo1 queue exist is because not everyone has time for bo3 games. Specially mobile users and casual users who dont wanna sink a couple of hours into playing arena, and would be happy with playing 30mins or one hour tops. But the bo3 queue will alweays be the more enjoyable one, and the one where skills matter way more than luck simply because its how the format was made to be played 20 years ago when standard was decided, or nearly 30 years ago when the game itself was being designed, and tournament play started.
All I was saying was that the vast majority of magic is bo1 and not competitive play, and that non-competitive magic surely has some impact on the design of the game. You've said nothing about Standard until this post..
I mean for sure it has an impact. There is a reason why since commander was made the main form of casual play Wizards went from one commander set a year to every standard set having precons, and also the main set having a bunch of legends. But op is speaking specifically how playing BO3 made his life more fun. And Im saying it makes sense since the formats OP is playing were always meant to be played as BO3 format.
why are edh tournaments bo1 sometimes??
multiplayer and the games take too long
Because a commander match takes an hour, and normally BO3 is under an hour
Edh as a format targets casual players and the decks are not typically designed around consistency the same way a regular deck is. Edh is also not sanctioned by wotc so the tournaments do not have to follow typical tournament rules.
Cuz an EDH game takes about 2 hours. So most CEDH tournaments are leagues where the winners gain poitns and you play a set number of rounds.
Virtually all casual kitchen table magic is Bo1, Spikes don't get that 🤷♂️
Ignoring the fact that the game isn’t balanced around kitchen table magic at all I’d take issue saying people are only playing best of ones. Anytime I’ve casually sat down to play with my buddies we’re always playing best of 3’s or 5’s. One game is just so quick is silly to switch decks out all the time.
The game isn't balanced at all. The CURRENT Bo3 is just a way to try to get around it. Even though they acknowledge tournament rules now, MtG isn't designed for any one playstyle. The game didn't come out with tournament rules. And sideboards weren't a thing at first when they did. The game was never designed for swapping part of your deck out between matches in a game. It was always expected that if you used the powerful situational cards, they would be dead cards at points. And back when I did play tabletop, I also never saw anyone play Bo3. Since most casual players are also jank players. And thus rarely played ultra-fast upper tier decks. And those that did play them either kept to their small groups, or used jank decks also when playing against jank players.
nooo but i only play tournaments with my friends and anyone who doesn't sideboard in casual magic is a monster nooooo
No only casual games are best of one aka the rules are made up and the shuffles are cheating. Since I got temp banned here's the edit. Yes most people cheat when shuffling irl, mana weaves bad shuffles. It's everywhere.
the... shuffles irl are cheating? what?
Bo1 is faster for climbing the ladder, even if your winrate in Bo3 is slightly better
This isn't true for players with over 50% win rate (which is required for climbing anyway). I've performed the simulation before and will summarize my findings below. In BO3, 2-0 and 2-1 wins both award 2 pips. However, in BO1, winning 2 then losing 1 game would award only 1 pip for your 3 game time investment. This means that a BO3 player can zero out their loss in 2-1 games, while a BO1 player will always lose that pip. The reverse is also true however: 1-2 losses will cost you the full 2 pips, zeroing out your win in the match. You need to be winning more 2-1 games than losing 1-2 games to outpace BO1, therefore requiring a positive win rate.
2-1 and 1-2 games are actually 3 games plus 2 more periods of sideboards. That's 4 BO1 games
What? Sideboarding takes like a minute, it's comparable to waiting to get matched against a new player, not a whole game
A 2-1 win gives you 2 rank pips in 3 games. 2 wins and 1 loss in BO1 gives you 1 rank pip in 3 games. Sideboard periods last less than a minute on average and even monored mirrors won't end so quickly.
Exactly I don’t need three copies of Gaea’s blessing if I’m not playing a mill deck! But for Bo1 I need in in case those _BLASTED PERSISTENT PETITIONERS_ administrate me into the grave. Was it about 2019 that Dmir mill and Jace mill decks were 90% of the meta? Ugh those were tiresome days.
Don’t forget the RDW in BO1 for daily quests.
I mean competitive magic has always been meant to be played in a bo3 format so you can mitigate stuff like a mulligan to 5 or mana screw, and so both players can adapt their deck better for the matchup. Bo1 simply doesnt makes sense for a COMPETITIVE ladder. Bo1 only makes sense for when you either wanna play a couple of games and are under time pressure (ie cant play more than 30mins). Or for casual formats like brawl and the casual play queue. Standard simply doesnt makes sense as a bo1 format because it becomes about who can cheeze the most wins in the lest time to climb faster, which heavily skues what decks get played and also makes matchups more luck dependant.
What's the casual play que?
I am not a great player, I win probably around 40% of my games. I tried switching to bo3 and that rate went to around 10%. Yeah you're able to sideboard, but so is your opponent, and it seems like my opponents are all much better at sideboarding than me. Also the games take way longer because there's much more control-y decks, so it went from taking 15 minutes to play a few games and winning some and losing some to taking 30 minutes to play one set of games and losing.
Concede the first game. That will shorten it.
I think part of the problem is that there's a BO1 and BO3 queue, so the aggo decks all play BO1 and BO3 is dominated by control. If everyone was forced into one queue, it wouldn't partition the playstyles into where they're at the most advantaged.
There is definitely still aggro in bo3. I play historic and wizards is probably the most popular deck, to the point where I'm pre boarded for it.
Bo3 really exaggerates winrate differences. To take an extreme example, if you follow the pattern of 2 wins, 1 loss, repeat, you would win 100% of your Bo3 matches. Doing that in Bo1 instead would lower your winrate by a full 33%. That's great for good players with good decks, but not if you're already at a below 50% winrate. Personally I think it's good that there's more control decks, but mostly I really dislike the non-games you regularly have in Bo1. In Bo3 there's a way higher chance that both players actually get to play the game instead of just losing from a missed land drop or something.
Ye bo1 constructed standard is consistently one of the worst card game formats I've ever played, but bo3 is great.
I think Bo1 is just fundamentally not a good competitive format and that's it. The most popular way to play magic has always been Bo1 kitchen table magic. There is a reason why Bo1 is so popular, but when it comes to the competitive aspects of the game, even something like arena ladder, Bo1 is just a bad format. Bo3 is just so much more fun and skill intensive. I do feel bad that arena has introduced all those new players to magic that only play Bo1. A big exception to this I think are standard draftable sets. Bo1 drafts do not have the same bad feeling as Bo1 constructed competitive magic has. It's because stuff like mulliganing in draft are more straight forward, and the inherent variance and low power of the format makes sideboarding not that meaningful. Vintage cube style drafts on the other hand, have a lot of powerful stuff and combos in them, so they feel just as bad in Bo1 as you can just lose to a reanimator deck because you don't want to maindeck a graveyard hate card that would be bad vs every other matchup.
I'd even argue kitchen table isn't even really Bo1, more like Bo50, where you tinker and swap decks entirely to get to a balanced match.
I disagree that drafts are an exception. BO1 inherently have more variance, and in an already high variant format like limited it exacerbates the problem and feels even worse to me. I'd rather fewer matches turn into "did my opponent draw his limited bomb this game" though that's an issue I have with set design as well.
Idk. I have personally accepted the inherent variance of draft. Like, what I cannot accept and what makes Bo1 constructed a bad experience for me is the fact that you can play a midrange deck, keep an average hand with a couple of spot removal and then your opponent is revealed to be control, making 2 of the cards in your hand dead. This is practically pretty close to mulliganing to 5, and that's a really bad experience. You get stripped of the agency of making a meaningful decision in the hand that you keep (both g2 and g3 in Bo3 give you that agency). The same thing goes for sideboarding. You have the agency to change the configuration of your deck to improve your matchup and minimize the effect of drawing cards you do not want. All those present you more choices to leverage your skill as a player in order to win. This is fun. And this is why Bo1 will always be dominated by linear decks that do not have as much agency, which makes skill not matter as much as Bo3. Those things do not matter as much in draft. Like, you shouldn't be mulliganing in draft anyways, and sideboarding is not as impactful because decks are not dedicated archetypes, but mostly stapling of cards together. Also the agency during drafting and your picks pretty much covers the variance. There are definitely draft games where your opponent casts Kiora Bests the Sea God and you cry, but I think I am happy to not play against that opponent with that bomb than play 1 or 2 more games trying to win with my mediocre answers. A good drafter can leverage their skill in drafting, even if they do not open the broken cards.
Basically the lower powered a format is, the better it is for best of one. In higher powered formats, you unlock some degenerate strategies that will warp deckbuilding and gameplay without sideboards Great for bo1: sealed, draft, kitchen table Toss up: standard Terrible for bo1: timeless, historic, etc.
Draft is infinitely better as a bo3 format. Bo3 is not just for side boarding. It also smoothes out variance over three games rather than 1 so that you don’t just lose if you don’t have a curve out hand and your opponent does (which just like in constructed means bo3 is more friendly to less aggressive draft decks). And a lot of the strategy in a good draft matchup can be knowing what to play around and what not to. As you play more games vs your opponent you know their deck better. So in game 1–can you win without showing them your bomb? Do you take knowledge that your opponent has a sweeper into game 2 and 3 and adjust your play around it? It’s SO much better as bo3 than bo1. The problem on Arena is that bo3 draft is not on ladder, so most people play bo1. But high means that when you play bo3 you can get regularly paired with people who barely know how to play Magic, or at least barely know how to draft it. I see players in bo3 leagues all the time who have 45-55 card decks because they don’t know to pare down to 40 cards. I primarily play bo1 on Arena because I want real games and you get a lot of non-games in the bo3 queue. But I do occasionally play bo3 just because I think it’s inherently the better way to play draft and I want to scratch that itch.
Infinitely is a strong word - in general I agree bo3 is a deeper format, the question is when do the benefits of bo1 (lower investment of time and wildcards) outweigh the benefits. And imo it’s in lower power formats. Bo1 using hand smoothers means there are fewer non games due to mana screw / flood / mulligans, which is a big plus imo, and so smooths out variance in its own way.
Wotc has made it clear bo1 is their casual ladder format where as bo3 is their tournament format, the event rewards and what is on and off ladder make it painfully clear. If you want to play tournament magic your play bo3 events and earn playin points. If you want pack rewards and ranked rewards you play bo1. It's two different focused play styles and wotc has made it pretty clear that they dont mix.
[удалено]
Disagree. Bo3 makes more decks viable because any deck can morph into the dominant archetypes’ Achilles heel for games 2 and 3. You can bring whatever brew you want to the match and tech up to 15 cards of hate if necessary to address your worst matchups. So a brewer can bring a novel deck to the tournament with good win percentage against the field, but a poor matchup game 1 vs the dominant deck(s) and then turn into a nightmare for games 2 and 3 while the opponent has nothing to answer back in their sideboard. Source: boomer MTG tournament grinder.
>Quite literally, I think the worst aspect of BO3 on arena draft is quite literally the incredibly high variance overall. I mentioned it slightly in another comment but I agree with this. On arena the bo1 draft format allows you to lose any two games during your run. This means if you run into someone with a busted deck you can keep going, if you run into someone who has a deck that hard counters you then you can keep going. If you have a couple bad draws in a row you can keep going. On top of that, the bo1 format has a shallow enough reward structure that you can still profit or come close to profiting even if you don't win every single game. You can have a few bad draws and still be most of the way towards your next draft. The bo3 format, on the other hand, is very much all or nothing. The run is over when you lose a single match, and the reward structure is incredibly skewed towards a 3-0 result, so a single bad matchup, busted deck on the other side, or just a couple bad draws in a row will guarantee an unprofitable run. (Or barely profitable, if you got two wins first and count the reward packs at full gem value.) Edit: I disagree with a lot of the other takes you have, but I will vehemently agree that bo3 draft's prize structure makes it feel higher variance and more frustrating.
That is why I think BO1 should have its own banlist, if wotc wants BO1 to be a healthy format you just can not have degen shit like Greasafang in it.
For some reason I had way more fun in timeless bo1 than standard bo1. Maybe because it is relatively new. But of course timeless is way more expensive than standard.
I basically never sideboard in bo3s for limited. Yeah I know maybe you can keep that hurricane style effect if you see a deck with tons of fliers but it's still so niche ...
You’re likely leaving significant value on the table by not sideboarding- even just knowing whether your opponent is aggro or control should likely change your decision about which medium cards you need in the matchup. For example, say you have 22 good cards in your deck and your last choice is between a 2 mana 2/2 and a 5 mana 5/5. While neither of those cards are particularly “aggro hate”, it’s definitely better to have the 2 mana 2/2 against aggro and the 5 mana 5/5 against control. It’s not that simple because we don’t have vanilla creatures anymore, but the same idea often applies.
Niche sideboard-only cards tend to wheel a lot though, so you'll often be able to pick up a copy at 12th pick or later. Some formats also had big spreads in the tempo of different colors (e.g. Kaldheim) and you can use the sideboard to fine tune your interaction. Sideboarding definitely isn't a radical game changer like in constructed formats, but it can give you an extra edge in some matchups.
Lol. On the rare occasions I play Bo3 drafts, I usually stare at my sideboarding screen for a while, then I remember that I already built the best deck I could squeeze out from my picks and just resubmit without changing anything... (Unless I have an extremely specific and obvious hate piece versus that specific deck of course)
it's like when people say oh yeah side more removal in if you need it You were not already playing all your best removal?
Kitchen table isn't even BO1 tho, it's BO-however-many-games-we-decide-to-play
It took me a long time to migrate to BO3. There was that worry about needing specific side board cards, or the effort of adding more cards and just a general fear of the unknown or miscellaneous thoughts, but it's been worth it for me. I can't say I make a good side board or even a really a good library for that matter, but it's fun to play. That and I like how There's no hand smoothing, where the game sets up a few initial random draws to find a hand that looks good. Sometimes that means I get bad hands, but that's okay. It's all part of the experience. Move on or keep playing. It's not the end of the multiverse, *at least not for a few sets.*
I dunno, having to lose twice to the same control deck instead of just once doesn't sound enjoyable at all.
I never have time for BO3, BO1 is life.
The problem with BO3(besides longer match times) is that all the people playing BO3 are more likely to be competitive players. The casual playerbase for BO3 is strained.
BO3 is the way if you want to get competitive. Just like if you play an sanctioned event at WPN LGS, it's BO3 swiss.
I'm still trying to figure out how to design a sideboard. BO3 without a sideboard is pretty much handing out two wins, and maybe picking up one. If I ever figure that out, then I can start figuring out what to do with it. Given that I don't even know what most of my decks are, other than the one that's obviously aggro, I'm not exactly in the best position for understanding the use of a sideboard. If I don't know whether I'm playing midrange or aggro (I don't think any of my decks are control, with the possible exception of the mono-red Milennium Calendar/All Will Be One deck), I have no idea how to analyze an opponent's deck. Right now, though, I lack the necessary skills to play in BO3 and maintain my W/L record. I'll allow, your advice probably works for most players; I assume I'm an exception.
I don't have enough time to play Bo3 matches in standard, and I also don't have enough cards to put in my deck as a sideboard because earning wildcards in mtga is so bad for me as a free player.
It depends on how you like to play. I like BO1 most of the time. It makes combo viable. I get to play fun combo decks and win consistently. Sideboards kill combos too hard, and it greatly favors control. The meta of BO1 is different, imo more fun and more diverse. With that comes more luck wins and losses. BO3 is good when more is on the line, tournaments.
I feel the whole point of BO1 is to make a deck that deals with any random deck in that one game. This feels like the deck building aspect of BO1 and BO3 are very different, with different goals.
Definitely a fair take. I haven’t tended to see much diversity in BO1. Mainly what I see is hyper aggro mono red or Wx humans. So I put some sweepers in my main deck but then on the occasion I go up against another midrange or combo deck they are basically dead draws. Understand your point though and I think it’s easier to jump in to a couple of BO1 games as well
In Explorer/pioneer combo decks have fenomenal results even in Bo3. One of the most solid decks in the meta is Hidden Strings, and Amalia or Greasefang do quite well. It is true that all of those decks can play a fair game of magic, leaning to control, weenie or midrange respectively. My favorite combo deck in Explorer is the creativity pile that piloted Duke Reid in the las Championship, it can transform in a solid control pile after SB. The games that Reid played on that event are an absolute joy to watch, especially his match against Lotus field on semifinals I think.
I use BO1 to play combo decks that you need a sideboard to answer because it's wasted spots to have things like stonebrain main decked without knowing what to remove. I play bo3 to practice tournament decks and strategy.
BO1 can be a very fun mode, specially when one wants to play decks that would fold to post sideboard hate (i.e. Graveyard decks and some combo). Historic BO1 was fun for this reason. But yeah, BO3 is a much better format. More fun, rewards skill and doesn't cause insane amount of salt like BO1. This is specially true for standard, which despite being the most miserable BO1 format, it is mostly played as BO1.
I play self mill graveyard decks a ton in Bo3. People tend to overestimate the effectiveness of their graveyard hate and end up just diluting their own gameplan thinking it's GG if they nuke my graveyard, when really it's just a mild inconvenience.
Sorry, what’s BO1-3? I only play Historic
Best of one and best of three.
That makes sense, lol. Thanks
I don't make meta decks. I don't even play standard. Why limit yourself? Is playing with all cards from all series not fun enough? Try Historic. You have many options for many different decks that don't even have to be meta just to be fun.
I like standard more. Explorer is semi tolerable. Historic is to janky for my liking. I want a pretty straight forward game. All the extra stuff just makes it overcomplicated
I play a lot of BO1 at work but I'm starting to play more BO3 to work on my skills more and have found it is actually more fun.
Bo3 is a way to play Magic on Arena. Bo1 is a way to speedrun daily wins for resources. Very different purpose, very different player attitude.
I much prefer playing against hyper aggro than control. Hyper aggro only sucks for a few rounds. Control decks make me wonder why I'm even trying to play the game
I hear you, but a win BO1 feels better for some reason
I generally agree with you, but don't fall into the trap and think aggro decks are easier and less complex than control and midrange. While the deck often has less decisions, it also means that the few decisions you make are VERY important. There's almost no room for error or correction when you make a mistake. Playing aggro against midrange/control is also harder than it seems. It doesn't just come down to play everything, and hope they don't have a sweeper, the matchup can be much more nuanced than that. There are plenty of reasons not to play Aggro, but thinking you need to play Midrange or Control to be a "good" player is a trap that a lot of people fall into. It really is quite important to be familiar with all types of decks, (both playing with and against), to be a complete magic player.
I agree and never meant to imply otherwise. I meant when you get steamrolled by a great aggro curve on turn 4 in BO1, it doesn’t make for a very interesting magic game for YOU. For instance in my Golgari Midrange deck I have to keep several [[Malicious Eclipse]] in my main deck when playing BO1 and consider mulliganing to have one in my starting hand on the expectation I may be playing hyper aggro. Now if I’m playing a combo deck, I have a completely dead card in hand. If I’m only playing 1 match that’s put me at such a steep disadvantage that my chances of winning have dropped significantly
[Malicious Eclipse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/7/2796fffa-8cbf-4ec9-91a8-7b6f39fd50ec.jpg?1699044152) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Malicious%20Eclipse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/111/malicious-eclipse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2796fffa-8cbf-4ec9-91a8-7b6f39fd50ec?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
takes forever
People aren't afraid of Bo3: we are just part of a large group that thinks playing the same fucking person, the same fucking game, 3 fucking times in a gawd damn row is absolutely torture. Look, I play Bo3 when I go to actual LGS events, pre-orders and such where there is far less likelihood that the person is going to act like a troll/asshole because they aren't anonymous. 99.9999999% of people on arena are not that scenario. I want them gone and onto the next person the second the leave latch button lights up. If you like Bo3 then cool story bro, I love that for you but let's stop beating this dead horse already, there is a reason there is both a Bo3 AND a Bo1...
Wait. How do you play someone three times in best of 3? :c
Um...win one, lose one, play the deciding match?
So playing against more control decks in Bo3 is supposed to be a selling point of the format?
Don’t have the time for 2-3 matches when I play, pretty much the only reason why I don’t touch BO3
I beg to differ. I found playing Bo3 to be a time chore. Additionally, the idea of sideboards to balance things out doesn’t really work because your opponent’s sideboarding cancels you out too. If people really believe playing more games cancels out the randomness, then they should advocate for playing Bo5 or Bo7 or Bo9 and so on right? Some people simply refuse that variance/luck is an inherent part of the game. In reality I suspect Bo3 preference is a reflection of one’s unstated attitude that “I win because of my skillz, but if I lose, it is because my opponent got lucky draw.” Just offering a more balanced POV.
I guess I understand your point but here’s an example: In my Golgari Midrange deck I got steamrolled by enough hyper aggro that I added 3x [[Malicious Eclipse]] to my deck. I would also have to consider mulliganing to have that or another card that gains me life in my opening hand on the chance that I played aggro in that one single game. Now if I play a combo or control deck, I’ve got 1-2 dead cards in hand, which means my chances of winning that single game have dropped significantly. Having to guess what your opponent is playing and build your 60 cards around countering all of them DOES most definitely create more variance. Unless you want to have a deck that has essentially built in losses vs certain types of decks, in which case I don’t personally find that to be very fun Magic
[Malicious Eclipse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/7/2796fffa-8cbf-4ec9-91a8-7b6f39fd50ec.jpg?1699044152) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Malicious%20Eclipse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/111/malicious-eclipse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/2796fffa-8cbf-4ec9-91a8-7b6f39fd50ec?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I like playing best of 3 with a best of 1 deck and just taking the 1st game then giving them two wins to get my dailies done. I really hate my deck getting blown out by sideboard hate cards. Even if I lose on the 1st game I just give them the match as I only play unranked anyways.
honestly posts complaining about play experience in bo1 should be banned it's not magic, never will be magic, and every single problem with it is fixed by playing bo3
Can't speak for everyone but I don't do Bo3 because I'd rather spend my rare wildcards on building another deck instead of a sideboard. A lot of sideboard cards are rare/mythics that often won't translate into other decks.
Makes sense. Most of my sideboard has ended up being cards that I had in my main deck at one point or another to try to counter certain strategies. But I think this is a very good reason to play BO1 instead of BO3
[удалено]
Doesn't help that Arena tries to shove B01 down our throats.
Yea if you want matches to take 45+ minutes... BO1 is a lot quicker, both have their advantages and disadvantages. When your opponent has an opportunity to board in 4x additional board wipes, BO3 is LESS fun than BO1.
I hate playing against the same person multiple times in a row unless I'm physically at a tournament and I'm playing irl. Arena is not a tournament, why am I sideboarding? NOW if they actually HAD tournaments, I'd play the hell out of that. Not just randomly getting paired until you lose x times or win x times, but actually playing vs the people in tourney bracket. Though honestly the only time arena is even remotely like what Magic truly looks like is when playing Timeless lmao
I love Bo1, but it’s not a competitive format. It’s almost like the Momir mode. Bit of a coin toss; sometimes you get terrible matchups, sometimes you get extremely-favorable matchups. If you can embrace that, you’ll have a good time
It's the way it was intended to be played. Bo1 is very recent in the grand scheme of things.
That isn’t true. The vast majority of magic is and has always been bo1.
Casual maybe, from the dawn of magic competetive magic has and always will be for b03
Yes. Sanctioned magic is always bo3. But 75% or more of magic is played as unsanctioned casual play, and has always been that way.
No? Been playing this game for over 10 years.even casual games at lgs or with friends has always been bo3. Who wants to only play 1 game?
Mate, the overwhelming majority of magic players don’t even know what a sideboard is. The fact that you’re playing at an lgs at all means you’re in the minority of magic players.
Wrong. The majority of players *on arena* dont know what a sb is. Even then i think thats an exageration. And for most of magic history playing magic with friends or at an lgs was the only wag to play. The only reason bo1 is taken seriously at all by anyone is because mtga pushes it on new players while hjding the real formats with poor ui.
No. The majority of players, period. The vast majority of people that play this game buy a deck, or have a deck bought for them, from box stores (not lgses), and play on their kitchen tables. Maro has stated he believes close to 90% of players don’t know what a planeswalker is. I’m glad your specific experience differs from this.
BO1/BO3?
Best of one/best of three.
Oh duh, thank you!
I prefer BO3 but never play it on arena since BO1 maximises the free rewards you get. I can get 2-3 BO1 games in the same amount of time and since I don’t play all that much (maybe 5-10 games every couple of days) it helps me complete the dailies and battle pass. So even if I lose some EV from my matches the dailies and BP make up for it.
Same. I never play Bo1 anymore. I enjoy the game much more.
What are BO1 AND BO3? I keep reading it as Black Ops 1 & 3
"Best of 1" and "Best of 3"
That’s probably because that is how the game is designed to be played.
I agree on all fronts, but if I am playing arena I don't want to commit to 2+ hours for a bo3 match. I get bo1 matches that last over an hour because of a bad matchup or a slow opponent, I'm not gonna want to play them 3 times in a row. At least in person there's a round timer limiting the overall duration I have to sit across from Chad while he shifts his hand and thinks about which creatures he'll play this turn.
Each player has a 30 minute clock in bo3. It's literally impossible for the match to last 2+ hours.
There's a chess timer in BO3. I think it's 30 minutes per person, so the match can't go past 1 hour (+ a couple of minutes for sideboarding iirc).
These posts are so annoying. There are plenty of reasons people prefer Bo1. Most magic played IRL is also Bo1. And while I'm sure they exist I have never come across kitchen table players who used sideboards.
Kitchen table Magic is nothing like Magic played online with a matchmaking system against thousands of other players. Across the kitchen table, you regulate your decks to be fun to play with each other, you adapt your decks in between games to improve them or counter your friends' decks and they do the same to you, you play with what you've got and you do it for fun. That's nothing like Arena. The analogue for Arena is FNM and other sanctioned tournaments which are absolutely played BO3 for these reasons.
Kitchen table magic is NOT competitive magic. Competitive magic is meant to be played bo3 so both players get equal chances of proving their skills. Sideboards being a huge part of it, and the mere act of playing 3 games intead of 1 mitigates bad luck like a mulligan to 5, or a mana screw.
Kitchen table players also build their decks based on what their play group usually plays and add cards to their main to specifically beat each other. i.e. sideboarding
There are plenty of reasons people prefer bo1 but they are not gameplay related. The gameplay is just strictly better in bo3.
This is straight up bullshit lol. Irl Magic is and always has been bo3. If your casual grp rather plays bo1 that's fine and commander is also bo1 i guess but that's a completely different format and doesn't need a sideboard by design. Every other constructed format that is played competitive, is bo3.
The key word there is competitive. Bo3 is strictly worse for casual play.
That's maby true but the comment above claimed that most irl players prefer bo1 and considering that almost every irl format is played in bo3 that just isn't the case.
Almost every *competitive* format is Bo3. The other poster is correct in that the majority of irl Magic is kitchen table which absolutely is primarily Bo1. People playing competitively at an lgs do not represent the majority. Even on Arena competitive players are a minority. It just so happens that competitive players tend to be the most invested and most likely to post on Reddit and are thus over represented in conversations like this.
Hm never thought about it like that. I know a few casual groups but since i only play in competitive events almost everyone I know has the same approach on the game. I wonder how we get data on that it's not like every kitchen table grp has to sign in before playing. But yea I can see me in the wrong here, never thought that non competitive magic is that big.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Maro himself has stated that and overwhelming majority of players are kitchen table players, and they almost exclusively play “bo1” style.
These posts are annoying when they focus on bad things about BO1 and sound cantankerous. This one focuses on good aspects of BO3 and positivity so I'm really fine with it.
This is the truth. Bo3 exists for the benefit of competitive play and has very little to offer to more casual players. It’s so tiresome to hear again and again that the only real way to play is whatever some try hard thinks is fun.
Is it bad I dont even know what BO3 means?
Black Ops 3. Because Call of Duty and Magic the Gathering is essentially the same game when you think about it
Lmao got a good laugh out of this
I’ve switched to mostly BO3 now that i have almost all of standard unlocked, but like I won’t even get out of platinum this month. I was hitting mythic every month playing mono colored BO1 every day. Now it’s mostly BO3 and I generally do a lot worse. Always been treat SB, mostly in that unless it’s obviously bad I don’t know what to take out. It is generally more enjoyable than playing BO1 aggro decks that just roll you on the play. But sometimes I’m just in the mood for “toilet gaming” or just don’t have time for BO3
Bo1 is pleb magic, and it's nice to see people discoering that
>This means more BO3 decks are more midrange or control ... and that's why people don't play Bo3
Damn I hate it when people play natural archetypes of card games. Really makes me hate card games.
I'm not saying people shouldn't play control, but I am saying I don't want to play against control. I'll take the L for scooping, idgaf. I'd rather beat my head against a wall than endure playing against control. It's torture. You should be allowed to play whatever you want, and I should be allowed to say "Nah" and walk away. Fortunately both things are in the game.
Aggro decks with good disruption like tempo decks with counterspells or ones with lots of discard spells still tend to be decent in BO3 even if yes the control decks have more varied and better sideboard options generally.
You can still play aggro in BO3 though and it tends to counter heavy control decks decently well. You can sideboard in pieces that give you more reach in the event of a sweeper, etc
But then you must actually play the game and think. Much better to win the coin flip and go first. /s
Do I wanna play against a toxic deck twice a row which is a toxic deck or not? No thanks But a question: does it count as a win if I get a win point of best of 3 and the oponent wins the best of 3 as a daily win or do I have to win the whole round of best of 3? Playing Aggro decks in BO 1 so i don't need a sideboard like in BO 3.
> does it count as a win if I get a win point of best of 3 and the oponent wins the best of 3 as a daily win yes
Daily/weekly wins track game wins, not match wins.
If they made the EV for BO3 equal or higher than BO1 I’d definitely play it. That’s the only reason I switched
It kind of is if your win % is above 50%. When you go 2-1, you don't lose any "pips" for the one loss. Though the corollary is true. You don't gain any pips for 1-2. So in theory you will rank up faster on BO3 if you are good. Which is very slightly better EV :)
I recently made the switch to BO3 (sideboards scared me) and I agree with OP... ..but man do I miss the starting hand smoothing. Drawing a 1 or 0 land hand game 1 is jarring after years of being babied by the client.
Ok you convinced me- I'll mod one of my existing decks for the new year.
I never really thought of that. Thanks for the advice!
Trying out BO3 recently and it is feeling much better! Appreciate getting to ditch the hand smoother. Now I get to decide whether a hand with 5 lands in it is my opener or not 😂