@Smmenen not mentioned, sounds like a solid twitter question for Mr Sharpe.
For me, the question is do we see regular 30+ attendance for these weekly or do these become just a 7am EST daily with sweet relative prize support.
It's every weekend rather than just once a month... The prize support is higher for these then the P9 challenge
About $350 for first. $220 for 2nd.
I got about $150 for 2nd in the April P9
This is potentially exciting, but I'm concerned that it dilutes prestige & community focus of the monthly event I assume this will replace.
@Smmenen I wonder if twice a month would have been better. I know that I rarely have that much time at once that I can just dedicate to one tournament. So every weekend makes it far more likely I can occasionally play in these. However, I have to imagine that per week there won't be enough demand. Although at the same time the payouts are pretty sweet compared to the old payouts. With Black Lotus being down to just over $50 and moxes almost all in the teens it was more about prestige then what you go if you won.
It's only an 8 person minimum. That's 4 less than the dailies. For these kinds of prizes they will b firing no problem and I would not be surprised to see some new players because of it. (Expected value). Anyone under 17 players is making value just by signing up. And 32 players play for free.
The total EV in the tournament (with chests at 2.3 tickets) is 20265 playpoints (2026.5 tickets). So 81 or less players is positive EV. More than 81 players is negative EV. In other words we are pretty much guaranteed EV.
@vaughnbros said in Vintage Challenge Every Weekend:
The total EV in the tournament (with chests at 2.3 tickets) is 20265 playpoints/tickets. So 81 or less players is positive EV. More than 81 players is negative EV. In other words we are pretty much guaranteed EV.
Exactly. It's easy to see how dailies don't fire. You have to beat Rich Shay, Brian Kelly, and Montolio for a measly 6 treasure chests
@desolutionist Dailies will probably fire even less now with this, and the lowered prestige on this even itself as Steve pointed out. Hopefully the player base increases enough where this isn't the case though.
People may forget this, but there used to be premier events three times a week. I helped organize and promote the first one that ever fired, but it was tremendous work. Eventually, Wizards cancelled them. When Rich and I wrote the article that eventually led to the P9 series, we requested 1 Premier event a month and a larger quarterly one to concentrate attention. The P9 series, whatever the problems with the program, has been very successful.
This new idea, of having a premier event every weekend, may be good for players who want to compete more regularly, but too much of a good thing can be a bad thing, as past experience has shown.
If these events end up being 25-35 players a weekend, is that really better than a 60+ player event once a month? I'm not sure, but that's the quandary we are now in.
There is also the secondary harm that this may have to stores, where people actually drive to play once a week. With this competing against Saturday paper Vintage, that's going to harm both. In the past, I've tried to steer local events away from the same weekends at P9 challenges. That's now impossible.
I'm cautiously pessimistic about this change.
@Smmenen if a store throws a monthly Vintage event, it's easier for players to skip that weekend Premier knowing there is another event the next weekend. I don't see that as a problem except for attendance for the MTGO event.
The previous premiere event series failed because of the 32 minimum player cap. They consistently got 30 players before people figured out that they weren't going to fire. Speaking as one of the people who attempted to join every one, all we wanted/needed was a lower minimum player cap.
As someone who sold out of MTGO many months ago, the idea of a p9c every weekend has me pretty excited and I pay bite the bullet and grab a deck again.
I'm totally positive on the change. I think there's some risk, sure — but (for me) Lee and the MTGO team have built up enough credibility. They're willing to experiment, and they care about the format. If this plan doesn't work out, I have no doubt that they'll roll back the change and try something else.
This also feels like it might be a first step toward getting leagues off of the ground without the risk of losing scheduled events entirely.
And the prizes are great! Exciting time to be a MTGO Vintage player!
With an 8 player minimum and increased price structure I fail to see how this is anything other than a huge net positive for the format. It offers increased incentive for new players to look into Vintage without dealing with the uncertainties of dailies. As far as live event attendance goes, it's not as if this is a fluctuating schedule so stores can just run events on Sundays if they are worried about this impacting attendance, and considering the differences in attending a live event versus an online one I imagine people who ultimately chose to skip the live event for the online one likely weren't going to attend the live event anyways.
I think this is a great upgrade to the monthly challenge, and hopefully will bring in more vintage players on MTGO. As for store events, MTGO can never compete with the store experience. Meeting people, playing games, chatting between rounds, and overall real experience of playing in a store will always take priority to me.
This change is amazing for the format. The prizes are better. The threshold for this firing is low. And the fact that this is every weekend means more high-level Vintage.
This is more opportunity for new people to get into online Vintage. This is also more opportunity for new people to get into creating Vintage content via streaming. I know I am not always positive on MODO. But this is an example of their team doing something absolutely in the interest of our community.