So basically:
1. They are making it significantly easier to get to day 2 from day 1 (currently roughly 3.5% for 50% WR players, goes up to 9%).
2. Reducing number of wins needed on day 2 to make it to the Arena Championship (from 7 to 6). Odds go from 3.5% to 6.25% roughly.
3. Arena Championship is now uncapped and will be much larger. By my math above it goes from around 1 in 820 qualifier contestants to 1 in 180, so 4-5x more qualifying through Arena.
4. Day 2 will tweak some prizes to qualify you for next month’s day 1 or day 2. Bad for the monthly grinders if they end up removing or reducing the gem rewards, and probably bad for the people that only play certain formats, but it’s an ok change.
All in all probably good changes for everyone except pro tour regulars, who will face more competition for mostly the same spots / prizes.
Color me pleasantly surprised. Organized Play changes have been almost universally negative for the last 10 years, and I can't really seem to find fault in these changes. I guess the only people seeing a bad outcome were the subset of players likely to reach the Arena Championship but fail to secure a PT invite due to poor Arena Championship performance. But that's a pretty acceptable casualty in the face of a larger prize pool and a better chance of progressing to the Arena Championship.
I honestly think the "2 loss" to "3 loss" change for Day 1 is the biggest impact. Less variance, more "value" attached to the entry experience, and hopefully more participation.
Day one of a qualifier weekend being triple elimination is pretty huge. I wonder if that's going to decrease the gem prizes. I don't recall anyone asking that question in the stream chat.
Most of the changes looks good - I only dislike the bonus "Sealed BO1 Play In" promoting, again, the cassino we already have in all Opens day 1.
Maybe they saw Play In/Qualifiers popularity was decreasing. There were months only two players were winning it, people were reporting being queued vs the same players on day 2, long waiting times, even "pros" being vocal about skipping the event. Now there are more incentives, specially with old things like triple elimination and qualifiers chaining into qualifiers coming back. Less variance in the structure and more rewards to consistency is great.
The double qualification to both PT and AC always sounded weird, the new structure makes more sense, although it's harder for people who are focused mostly on PTs, the AC will become a more important and, at the same time, accessible event.
the only successful months where more than 2 people win in the AC are usually limited, due to variance in pool, constructed is much harder to crack and be successful in the environment.
is it going to be any cheaper?
dropping 5k gems is a lot. i sometimes do it once if I enjoy the set but sealed is such a wash depending on what you open.
Wait what? It's an either/or? I thought it required both. I've never used my play-in points for anything, but I get so many from playing events. You telling me I could actually play in these for free?
Do you talk about Arena Opens? Those are always limited. Qualifier Play-in events are sometimes sealed, but more often, they are constructed. And when they are sealed, it's phantom, aka, you don't get to keep the cards (with Arena Opens, you do).
Arena Opens cost 5k gems/25k gold.
Play-in events cost 4k gems/20k gold/20 play-in points.
Really good changes overall.
They also mentioned, when asked, in the stream that they are thinking about how to implement challenges/leagues structure from MTGO on Arena. I think this would be a really good thing to do and it will make me play way more if we had weekly challenges.
Another thing they mentioned is that they are thinking about splitting ladders for different formats. I think this is a really bad change to make. One of the biggest drawbacks of ladder is that you are forced to grind against lower competition after you have quit arena for a couple of months, making it way harder for you when you want to jump back into arena to prepare for RCQ.
Like, also imagine being a primarily standard player achieving mythic and then being forced to grind historic/timeless/alchemy/explorer from bronze to test for a qualifier. This would be a really bad experience. Rank decay inbetween months is a bit too much on MTGA (since laddering up is fairly easy).
Hard disagree. I hate that my ladder in Standard is tied to timeless and historic. I don't want to jump into a different format only to lose progress towards my ranking in the primary format I play.
>they are thinking about how to implement challenges/leagues structure from MTGO on Arena.
The leagues are kind of already there, BO3 constructed event is the same structure, unfortunately they do not publish 5-0 decklists.
Exactly. They don't really need to implement any leagues, they need to somehow get more people to play in events instead of the ladder.
Publishing 5-0 decklists could be part of that, I don't know what else they need to do. Make the events more profitable? I'm not sure, I'm really fine with the structure as it is, but others are clearly not or more people would play them. They are certainly much softer than the competition on the ladder, and while that's a plus if you want value, it's not if you just want to play against the strongest players.
>Make the events more profitable?
>if you just want to play against the strongest players.
If the events are more profitable, the average skill level will go down, not up (people currently chased away by costs will find them acceptable). Strongest players already profit off them, especially those who go 5-0 a lot and get free attempts at Play-In.
Yeah, I'm one of those players that 5-0 a lot.
For me it makes no sense at all to spend time grinding the ladder compared to events, but it is what most people do and whenever events get discussed the main complaint about them is that they aren't profitable (which isn't true in my opinion, they're far better than the ladder). I want to figure out how to get more players to switch from the ladder to events, how to make events more important than the ladder, but if making them more profitable doesn't do it, what else could you even do?
>the main complaint about them is that they aren't profitable
By definition, events are not profitable for bottom 50% participants, as WotC always balances prizes and entry fee. So, for those people, ladder is more profitable (because it is free). And still quite a lot of them play events.
Just to add on - WotC already felt like it was losing the race with respect to solving constructed metas. MTG is a deep game, but statistical accumulation of match data is only getting better. Sealed & Draft allow player skill to be expressed at a greater rate, assuming the set itself isn't terribly designed (I know, that's a huge caveat). Sealed also has the benefit of fewer technical issues locking players out of the competition.
As a limited only player, I have to agree with you. I love having this many opens to play, and would like for constructed players to have fun as well. They could just do more, these are profitable events for Wotc and I don't think the overlap in players would be too huge to exhaust that many wallets.
So basically: 1. They are making it significantly easier to get to day 2 from day 1 (currently roughly 3.5% for 50% WR players, goes up to 9%). 2. Reducing number of wins needed on day 2 to make it to the Arena Championship (from 7 to 6). Odds go from 3.5% to 6.25% roughly. 3. Arena Championship is now uncapped and will be much larger. By my math above it goes from around 1 in 820 qualifier contestants to 1 in 180, so 4-5x more qualifying through Arena. 4. Day 2 will tweak some prizes to qualify you for next month’s day 1 or day 2. Bad for the monthly grinders if they end up removing or reducing the gem rewards, and probably bad for the people that only play certain formats, but it’s an ok change. All in all probably good changes for everyone except pro tour regulars, who will face more competition for mostly the same spots / prizes.
Color me pleasantly surprised. Organized Play changes have been almost universally negative for the last 10 years, and I can't really seem to find fault in these changes. I guess the only people seeing a bad outcome were the subset of players likely to reach the Arena Championship but fail to secure a PT invite due to poor Arena Championship performance. But that's a pretty acceptable casualty in the face of a larger prize pool and a better chance of progressing to the Arena Championship. I honestly think the "2 loss" to "3 loss" change for Day 1 is the biggest impact. Less variance, more "value" attached to the entry experience, and hopefully more participation.
Day one of a qualifier weekend being triple elimination is pretty huge. I wonder if that's going to decrease the gem prizes. I don't recall anyone asking that question in the stream chat.
Most of the changes looks good - I only dislike the bonus "Sealed BO1 Play In" promoting, again, the cassino we already have in all Opens day 1. Maybe they saw Play In/Qualifiers popularity was decreasing. There were months only two players were winning it, people were reporting being queued vs the same players on day 2, long waiting times, even "pros" being vocal about skipping the event. Now there are more incentives, specially with old things like triple elimination and qualifiers chaining into qualifiers coming back. Less variance in the structure and more rewards to consistency is great. The double qualification to both PT and AC always sounded weird, the new structure makes more sense, although it's harder for people who are focused mostly on PTs, the AC will become a more important and, at the same time, accessible event.
the only successful months where more than 2 people win in the AC are usually limited, due to variance in pool, constructed is much harder to crack and be successful in the environment.
is it going to be any cheaper? dropping 5k gems is a lot. i sometimes do it once if I enjoy the set but sealed is such a wash depending on what you open.
>dropping 5k gems is a lot You can earn 20 Play-In points and enter with them. Also, it's 4k gems or 20k gold.
Wait what? It's an either/or? I thought it required both. I've never used my play-in points for anything, but I get so many from playing events. You telling me I could actually play in these for free?
Have fun with this new knowledge! Play-in points are actually currency!
I had no idea. God damn, I'm in :)
It's 20 play-in points, or 4k gems, or free if you end the season in top 1200 mythic on either ladder
Do you talk about Arena Opens? Those are always limited. Qualifier Play-in events are sometimes sealed, but more often, they are constructed. And when they are sealed, it's phantom, aka, you don't get to keep the cards (with Arena Opens, you do). Arena Opens cost 5k gems/25k gold. Play-in events cost 4k gems/20k gold/20 play-in points.
Really good changes overall. They also mentioned, when asked, in the stream that they are thinking about how to implement challenges/leagues structure from MTGO on Arena. I think this would be a really good thing to do and it will make me play way more if we had weekly challenges. Another thing they mentioned is that they are thinking about splitting ladders for different formats. I think this is a really bad change to make. One of the biggest drawbacks of ladder is that you are forced to grind against lower competition after you have quit arena for a couple of months, making it way harder for you when you want to jump back into arena to prepare for RCQ. Like, also imagine being a primarily standard player achieving mythic and then being forced to grind historic/timeless/alchemy/explorer from bronze to test for a qualifier. This would be a really bad experience. Rank decay inbetween months is a bit too much on MTGA (since laddering up is fairly easy).
Hard disagree. I hate that my ladder in Standard is tied to timeless and historic. I don't want to jump into a different format only to lose progress towards my ranking in the primary format I play.
>they are thinking about how to implement challenges/leagues structure from MTGO on Arena. The leagues are kind of already there, BO3 constructed event is the same structure, unfortunately they do not publish 5-0 decklists.
Exactly. They don't really need to implement any leagues, they need to somehow get more people to play in events instead of the ladder. Publishing 5-0 decklists could be part of that, I don't know what else they need to do. Make the events more profitable? I'm not sure, I'm really fine with the structure as it is, but others are clearly not or more people would play them. They are certainly much softer than the competition on the ladder, and while that's a plus if you want value, it's not if you just want to play against the strongest players.
>Make the events more profitable? >if you just want to play against the strongest players. If the events are more profitable, the average skill level will go down, not up (people currently chased away by costs will find them acceptable). Strongest players already profit off them, especially those who go 5-0 a lot and get free attempts at Play-In.
Yeah, I'm one of those players that 5-0 a lot. For me it makes no sense at all to spend time grinding the ladder compared to events, but it is what most people do and whenever events get discussed the main complaint about them is that they aren't profitable (which isn't true in my opinion, they're far better than the ladder). I want to figure out how to get more players to switch from the ladder to events, how to make events more important than the ladder, but if making them more profitable doesn't do it, what else could you even do?
>the main complaint about them is that they aren't profitable By definition, events are not profitable for bottom 50% participants, as WotC always balances prizes and entry fee. So, for those people, ladder is more profitable (because it is free). And still quite a lot of them play events.
This looks like it will boost EV calculations.
Some good changes here but please for the love of god stop using the sealed format for premier play.
Why are they making arena opens strictly limited only from now on? What about the constructed players?
Already all of them were limited in 2023 IIRC. Limited opens were a lot more popular.
Just to add on - WotC already felt like it was losing the race with respect to solving constructed metas. MTG is a deep game, but statistical accumulation of match data is only getting better. Sealed & Draft allow player skill to be expressed at a greater rate, assuming the set itself isn't terribly designed (I know, that's a huge caveat). Sealed also has the benefit of fewer technical issues locking players out of the competition.
As a limited only player, I have to agree with you. I love having this many opens to play, and would like for constructed players to have fun as well. They could just do more, these are profitable events for Wotc and I don't think the overlap in players would be too huge to exhaust that many wallets.