Aggro decks run rampant in Bo1 if you tune your deck to beat aggro, then you will have an easier time against most of the field. Simply put, do you want to play against the players who think they’re above 57% to win, or those who think they are below 57%? Even if you think you are highly favored against the Bo3 field, are you highly favored versus all the people who themselves think they are highly favored?īo1 is also more predictable than Bo3. Regardless of the reason, people who play Bo3 usually think they will win enough more in it to make up for the systemic deficiencies, which means they’re usually stronger opponents on average. Perhaps they are particularly good at sideboarding and think they can get an edge there. It could be that they did the math and thought they had an over 57% win rate therefore, they chose Bo3 because it’s higher value. It could be, for example, that they have a deck they truly like and have a lot of experience with - enough so that they think it offsets the smaller chance to qualify. The only people who do not do that are those who have a very good reason not to. Therefore, most people should gravitate towards Bo1. Other than that, it’s easy to tell, just looking at the numbers, that Bo1 is a better endeavor than Bo3. This doesn’t mean that everyone that plays Bo1 is new (last time I played Bo1 myself and got paired versus Marcio Carvalho, one of the best players in the world), but I suspect the vast majority of newer players will queue into Bo1.Īn Unflinching Look At Competitive Alchemy
Why? Because the competition is significantly weaker and more predictable.įirst off, if you’re very new to the format or to the game in general, you’re likely playing Bo1 Bo3 is a more “tournament”-based thing. For example, what if gems are your limiting factor and you can’t fire off a lot of bullets? In this case, I think it’s still better to play Bo1. There are, however, some factors that do not enter the equation here. I’m not trying to convince you to play Bo1 “because math,” but “because logic.” The only math you need to know is this - achieving 7-2 is simply easier than achieving 4-0.
#SMASHING FOUR BEST DECK ARENA 2 HOW TO#
I’m not going to delve deeply into how to get to these numbers because a) the numbers have slightly changed since this math was done last year, b) I don’t even know how to do that, and c) it’s not the point of the article. If it’s over 57%, then you’re better off playing Bo3 if it’s under 57%, you’re better off playing Bo1 (though I believe this is not even factoring in the monetary EV, which improves things for Bo1 since it’s easier to Day 2). The chance to qualify per gems spent ratio is variable depending on your win rate.Bo3 outperforms Bo1 in terms of Gem rewards.Bo1 is more likely to qualify for Day 2 than Bo3 regardless of win rate.In his thread, Djhuti concludes three main things: Let me borrow the calculation from Reddit user Djhuti to further illustrate. Simply put, 7-2 is a much easier record to achieve than 4-0.
#SMASHING FOUR BEST DECK ARENA 2 FULL#
Here’s the full breakdown: Day 1: Best-of-One Alchemy Wins If you play Bo3, then you play up to four match wins or one match loss, meaning you need to go 4-0 to qualify. This means a record of 7-2 is good enough to make Day 2. If you play Bo1, then you play until you reach seven match wins or three match losses.
I’m normally a much bigger fan of Bo3, but Bo1 is such a better proposition in the Arena Open that all my Day 1s so far have been Bo1, and this one will be too. I feel very strongly that Best-of-One is better. The first question people ask is whether they should play Best-of-One (Bo1) or Best-of-Three (Bo3). There are two different ways to play Day 1 you can play Best-of-One or Best-of-Three.Given unlimited resources, you’re basically guaranteed to make Day 2. The limiting factors are, of course, the entry fee (it’s not a cheap tournament) and your time and desire to keep playing.
0 kommentar(er)
