I think the 2nd option sound really awesome from an epic-nes standpoint so I think I would go with that one. Also these would be done online using...? or would they somehow require you to be somewhere?

@IPyro92 - They'd be online, through Cockatrice or another free online player.

KrazyCaley - Cool, thanks for the quick response.

No prob!

option two seems cool, although if it too much of a hassle, option one is also cool!

I actually prefer option 1. :P

Option 2 sounds awesome!

Either sounds cool

i like the idea of tournaments happening often but the second option seems a lot me grandios and awesome

either way. What a great incentive to upgrade my account :D if only the playtester worked! I must find a way to use cockatrice....

I think option 2 would be a lot of fun, if organized successfully. It would require a lot more careful planning to be successful, but I believe it would be worth it.

I think the second option is the better choice for the first thing like this we do. After we're done with the grand tourney, we can start doing smaller-scale events like option one, but option 2 sort of sets the stage. Plus, that "final battle" situation? Seems pretty damn epic.

I think smaller, more frequent tournaments would be more enjoyable. Not necessarily as casual as you're suggesting, but not quite so ambitious.

@http404error - I agree that they wouldn't need to be so casual. Didn't mean to play them down at all.

I think starting out small would be good. That way the kinks get worked out.

i agree with squire1 , just for now, then BIG! ;)

@squire1 and m12fox:

To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, the wisdom of this suggestion strikes me with very great force.

I'm kinda favoring option 1. It seems like a great way to kick things off. Then, from there, we can launch a really big tournament.

I also think starting off with a couple small tournaments would be best. Kinda test the waters. We can always decided to do option 2 later on.

Option 1 first with Option 2 to be considered if Option 1 goes smoothly I think.

I prefer option 1.

option 1 seems great, 2 seems a bit far-fetched but we need to start testing it with option 1.

I agree with squire1 and the others i would prefer some smaller tournies first.

Option 1, then maybe option 2 later. This would finally give me a reason to force myself to learn how to use cockatrice.

As hispanic girls everywhere would say, por que no los dos?

We could start up option 1 and start planning for the second as we learn from the first.

I like do first and learn more about how this will work then second option.

I like 1, it's like FNM for the internet.

we don't want to be the boy who sticks his hand in a jar and can't get it out because he grabbed too much. (aesop's fables) i say start with option 1 but someone should explain how to use cockatrice or whatever site we're using cause last time i was on cocktrice, people were really rude.

If we ever get to option 2, we should have to ay in multiple formats. Like a magic decathlon. Ten events/formats to place in and then best in show or overall winner.

As you can tell sports and me, not so much. Analogies and me not so much either apparently. But you ge te idea.

w999 cockatrice has options for private servers (not a big fan of their public server either).The software to run them is open source. In theory the tapped out guys would install this software on a server of theirs and we would log in there. From there the tournament could be handle without interference. Not a rep of tapped out so this is just one way to get around that.

ahh ok. thanks. that helps a lot

I'd prefer 1. Personally, I am not a fan on building constraints and I haven't played a mono colored deck in about 2 years, I don't really enjoy them when I have have more options. Also, Many of us pretty much stick to a few formats and aren't at all interested in the others. I also feel that it would be easier to manage that way.

One thing that would be fun though, is some form of clan war. Basically, we get assigned to teams, and one team get's to challenge another for points that they will either lose or gain from the other team. We could have seasons of it. Basically, we could set an end date, and the clan with the most points at that date wins. The clans would have 3 - 4 members in it, and would vote on a leader; all challenges would go through the leaders. We could give the clans 3 free refusals a season, but then they auto lose the points if they decline a challenge. I see it as a way to meet new people, and for the more experienced members to help the less experienced players improve their decks, and become better players. Just an idea I thought i'd throw out there.

i like that idea a lot but i dont think we should jump right into that i think we should try to organize something a bit more simple first but definately something id be very interested in in the future

and if we dont get around to it here id be more than willing to organize it with you it sounds really really awesome

It's pretty much group organized after the initial pairing. We would just need someone to report the wins and losses to in order to keep track of the clans points. I have done it years ago in a yugioh forum that I was administrating and it went over really well.

we shall see i say we get it started a week or 2 after the tournaments start then well start a whole other thread about it

option 1 sounds awesome it would be awesome seeing as i really dont go to tournaments or fnm

Option 1 sounds a lot more fun/better, to me.

I like both ideas, with Option 1 being a potential precursor and testing ground of Option 2.

Would there be a cost/entry fee?

Are the options mutually exclusive? I would prefer both, but if not I would be very content with option 1.

Would it be possible for us to enter decks into the competition and allow others to pilot them? I'm just asking because I would love to see how well my decks perform, but I will most likely not be able to get on cockatrice or the like to actually participate.

Wow, thanks for all the feedback, guys! It looks like we want to do Option 1 first and option 2 if it looks plausible after we do option 1. I'll get the wheels moving and see if we can't get it started by this coming weekend. Keep that feedback coming.

What format will it be?

Looks like most people favor standard. We might use that as a jumping off point.

In these tournaments,would we have to own these cards? I do all my standard decks, but curious if we go legacy/modern/commander I would still like to play and as of this moment, most of the cards I still own from years ago are not that 'good'.

@gufymike - Go check out Cockatrice. http://cockatrice.de/index.php?a=project

@KrazyCaley Already have it installed. Just was still curious.

@ gufymike: There was a question like this before in another tournament thread: since there is no easy way of checking which cards you actually own or not it will not be required to own the cards that you play. This also makes it fairer for all people involved.

I agree with 1 first, and 2 later maybe as an annual thing with some tweaks.

I'd also really love to see a team-based "season" of matches with some sort of ranking system and playoffs or something towards the end. Gamebattles does a good job with handling online video-game ladders and seasons following a similar idea.

anyways, whatever works is cool, I would be down for any sort of tappedout play. :)

Thanks guys.

I think it's a good idea to start small and work up. We should try the first option for a while and if enough people stck with it make the events larger.

I think I like option 2 with the preference being on cockatrice

I like the first option for now and when all the bugs get worked out we start the second option.

Option 2 sounds like a very creative and rather impressive idea. Sounds like a good time to me. However, i'm going to have to say it seems ambitious to start with that. It's a better idea to start with the smaller tournaments, and have it conglomerate with the second option.

I'm a big fan of either option, though I'd be more comfortable going through option 1.

I would do Option 2, but I feel like instead of 5 mono-color decks going at it, the 5 shards of Alara could duke it out, because tri-color is so great in standard right now with all the mana fixings being so great.

I agree with Chubbub, however, I really think we should try doing option 1 before 2. Several small-scale tournaments might be much better to try before we go all out in one huge tournament that might go down in flames because of one kink that no one thought of. Also, what exactly does "a super-powered single opponent deck" mean? Thanks!

I like option 1 the most.

I think option 1 would be best for now, then if there;s a lot of people who commit to it, maybe more down the line in option 2 :)

I say Option 1

Option 1, preferring Standard and Draft

option 1, though 2 would be pretty awesome

@gufymike - Cool. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you didn't know about it, just didn't want to assume you already knew if you didn't.

KrazyCaley No worries.

Hasbro has currently shut down Cockatrice, so I was wondering how and if we are planning on doing the tournaments still.

Well, that was predictable. Stand by.

FYI, github access to the code is still active. https://github.com/mbruker/Cockatrice

Yeah, but not for long. Woogerworks had something up before, and it got stopped.

Indeed, and lest we get Tappedout in any trouble, we probably should refrain in future from posting such links as long as Hasbro has decided that they're not cool with this. Hang on, folks.

We could always resort to some screen-sharing program in order to do this (and just use T/O's playtester) That would be really awkward and annoying, though.

If you were hoping to start this soon, it may have to be on MTGO. I know that will keep a lot of people from participating in the event (including myself), but it may be the best option currently if Hasbro is pursuing legal action against Cockatrice and possibly others programs like it.

If we end up using MTGO, I can't do it, so if we switch to MTGO, count me out.

Why I use(d) cockatrice is MTGO wouldn't register me, they wouldn't take my money when I tried to sign up for it.

I do like the sound of Option 2. However, from a logistics standpoint, it would be very hard to implement and keep moving. Especially over a years-time. A little ambitious for the first of it's kind. So Option 1 for me. Though I look forward for when we can successfully launch and complete something like Option 2!

Wow... way to be gold grubbing asses Hasbro.

Things like that make me not want to support the game. I'd bet that 90% of the people that use cocitrice use it to playtest decks before buying the cards. Many people (myself included) do not have the money to invest in MTGO. Now we no longer have a way to test decks without proxying them and testing them against a friend in person. This does not make me want to buy more cards, and it's not going to bully me into playing MTGO. It just pisses me off as I'm sure it will many people.

what about lackey?

I think both ideas sound awesome, but I'm more for the 1st option myself. I would love to play against other tappedout users in a Modern style tournament through Cockatrice sometime. But if Cockatrice gets shut down... :(

@Mpz5 I support MTGO, and think that anyone with the resources ought to use it rather than Cockatrice, but I agree with you that them attacking Cockatrice is not good for their game, and probably won't help their sales too much.

Still, intellectual property needs to be zealously defended even if you'd rather not, if you want to keep it.

@llamamymamma - Lackey being investigated. Stand by.

I used it to play magic with friends and family in Florida, None of them (or I for that matter) have the money to invest in MTGO. It was a way that I could spend time with friends I otherwise wouldn't because of distance. I used magic to do that and my family actually bought cards to play with me in person when I was down there; they did so because they learned how to play on Cockatrice.

I would also play-test decks before I bought them. There are many decks that I have bought packs to get because I had play-tested extensively on Cockatrice to see if I liked the feel of it. Even when I'm broke and can't afford new cards, it gave me an outlet to test and play the game; it kept my interest in it until I could afford more cards.

Cockatrice is casual, there are no money events on it, there is no money made from it by the people that run it, and as for me, it has actually made Hasbro money from my pocket. If doing what they did would cause even 20% of the population that played to go to MTGO, I'd say it was a money-grubbing, but good move in the business sense; however, I suspect that more people will quit all together, losing interest in the game because of this, than will start shelling out more money that they do not have for digital cards.

If you keep the customers happy, they will keep coming back. If you show that you are in it for the money, and could care less about the players... see how many stick around. All I know though, is that Hasbro has made money off of me and many people I know, solely because of Cockatrice. That is not speculation; that is fact. I think that it is fair to assume that my case is not isolated. Truthfully, I doubt that many people that used Cockatrice was going to buy into MTGO anyway. This is speculation and for that, I give it what merit it's due.

The people that want to play competitively online will go to MTGO. That's all there is to it. The casual crowd will likely never invest the money. It's the casual crowd they are hurting with this move.

@Mpz5 - Indeed, that last sentence is very true. And the casual crowd are the people who don't have a ton of cash for MTGO anyway. In the end, I think it's just fewer people playing the game, which is a shame. But it is their game, I suppose.

lackey looks good

I don't think Wizards is responsible. That said, until Hasbro execs apologize for their legal team, I'm boycotting all Hasbro products, including MtG (obviously still staying here, just not buying their product anymore). Cockatrice was only the straw that broke the camel's back, though. They have a nasty history as of lately. Several themes come through among the many incidents Hasbro's been involved in: namely greed, blatant disregard for customer base, and utter idiocy.

I prefer option 1, option 2 just seems like too much work.

This would be a great way for me to get into playing current content instead of just playing massive-multiplayer-super-casual with the people I know (heck, we even allow Un-cards, it's fun!).

Though this would mean I'd have to look up what the various formats are and what they actually mean, it'd absolutely be worth it. =)

Anywhoo, I'd prefer option 1.

@MechaKingGhidra -

Standard = The last two blocks of cards (currently Innistrad-Dark Ascension-Avacyn Restored and Return to Ravnica-Gatecrash) and the latest core set (currently M13) comprise the body of legal cards for standard.

Modern = All cards printed in 8th Edition or after 8th Edition are legal, except for the banned list and Un-sets.

Legacy = All cards are legal except for un-sets and the very extensive banned list.

Vintage = All cards are legal except for un-sets and ante cards. Many overpowered cards, e.g. Black Lotus, are "restricted," meaning you can only have one copy in the whole deck.

I think option 1 would not only be easier to handle but would be a lot more fun seeing as option 2 would restrict everyone else to only one format. However if either of these tournaments do start, I would love to do either one.

@KrazyCaley we could definately do it on lackey its up and running

I'm definitely interested in Option 1 (especially if we did drafts as a part of it). As for Cockatrice, that's really disappointing that Hasbro would shut something down like that. I'm curious as to why some things (like tappedout for example) stay unharmed while others get shut down. There's obviously a disclaimer at the bottom of the page that disassociates it with MTG, Wizards, etc. but it doesn't seem like Cockatrice was doing anything that I haven't seen from many other places. Just a curiosity if somebody knows why.

@poprocksncoke - Essentially, you can play MTG on Cockatrice (or rather, you could before it was shut down). You can't really do that on this site. We have a playtester, but it just shows you draws; it doesn't actually allow you to proceed with a match. That's most likely the relevant distinction in the eyes of Hasbro.

@KrazyCaley: Got it. The distinction they're making is between the MTG Card Game and MTGO I suppose then? Cockatrice being very similar to MTGO that is.

@poprocksncoke - Yes, that's probably the reason they wanted to take action, even if whatever legal claim they have made says more or less than that.

just FIY, don't know if you are aware of this, there is another Cockatrice server, just type in www.woogerworks.com on the server line and you're good to go (:

True, but I worry about them shutting THAT down as well.

well it's relatively new, so it should last for the duration of the tournament, if we do it

If it shuts down, I'm sure another will just open up soon after.

I'm changing my mind to option 1, because if it takes a year to do the second option, it's likely the servers will be shut down before we can finish the tourney.

I like option 1 better. I'd be fine with any format, though I'd like legacy the best.

Probably option 1 as it would be hard to commit to option 2. I prefer standard for format

option 1, standard.

option 1, legacy.

Standard for option 1.

I vote for Standard or Extended.

Standard Option 1

option 1 standard

Option 1, Standard seems like the highest rated. So we'll just go with that.

Option 1, Modern. Everyone does standard, why not have some variety for a change?

Option 1, Modern sounds alright to me, though I'd like to lean towards the grand (option 2 - call it my vote).

option 2. risks are worth it in my opinion

I have lackey and i actually prefer it over cockatrice because it has a more simple interface. that being said I like option 1. option 2 would be fun but only having it once a year with no guarantee of being in the grand finale match isn't very appealing. if it becomes more frequent like once a month then i would be willing to go for option 2.

I think this is a bad idea overall given the recent implications this would make it more likely that cockatrice will get shut down permanently and we should see how it plays out before we continue with this mini tourney.

I prefer Option 1. And I think LackeyCCG is a viable way to play, now that Cockatrice is down.

I would personally prefer option 1.

Why wouldn't there be the possibility of doing option 1 in multiple formats seeing as it is different groupings of people?

I would prefer option 1 with standard or modern. These choices are equal for me.

Option 1 sounds good to me. Love me some Standard and Modern.

As was said by a few, I think we should do option 1 a time or two so that we can work out the kinks and get better at forming the tourney.

Then we do the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny.

I prefer standard the most, as I am still a newish player and standard is all I know right now.

We could do Random Standard! I REALLY like Fantasy Type.

Either option would be pretty great.

I guess companies can never get TOO greedy, neither TOO stupid. People who don't play in MTGO won't get accounts just for banning Cockatrice. I know many people who test decks there and then buy cards in MTGO or real life. In the same way, a lot of people learn MTG through Cockatrice and then buy the cards after learning in it. Or learn about new decks in Cockatrice that they get interested in and buy later.

With all these restrictions and probably getting the servers shut down in the middle of our tournaments I don't know if the tournament is still a viable option. Instead there could be random giveaways, or trivias, I don't know...

Cockatrice isn't going anywhere. The central server may be shut down, but there are many smaller servers as well as direct IPA-IPA connecting.

Just a heads up, Lackey CCG is not bad at all. It's a bit steeper learning curve, but it still does all we need it to.

option2 sounds good

I only play Standard, but I'd love the opportunity to play other T/O users for Feature Tokens. Since you guys currently only take PayPal, which my family and I do not use, this would be a great opportunity for me.

I skimmed over the comments just to make sure I didn't talk about something that was already brought up. I think I have a relevant idea;

I think an extra feature/option that would be really cool and accessible for everyone would be to add some 'auto-pilot' tournaments as well. Like, have a couple set pilots that play a number of submitted decks with play-by-plays much like KrazyCaley's existing Daily Dose, in a mini-tournament format. Daily Dose has already done it to an extent, as have the deck challenges, but this would be to open up access to a much larger number of submitters.

Execution would be easy, as you can have two (or more) people that know eachother in real life to proxy and play, so they don't have to depend on MTGO or Cockatrice or Lackey, etc. The only downside I see is that it would probably be more work for those pilots.

Worthwhile?

@sewellius - Anyone is always free to submit their games to me and I'll turn it into a Daily Dose as it is. I do like your idea to simplify the logistics a bit when it comes to such features. I'm still hoping, though, that we'll be able to actually play.

Option 1 would be awesome in any format, though I would prefer modern/legacy.

Is casual going to be a format? If it isn't, I would have to edit my how to lose a friend by turn 5 deck...

option 2 is way legit

Option 1 is amazing

How about this;You do Option One, except take and make some small tourneys of, say, 8-12 people. From those, the winners move on to bigger tourneys here, and so on, until one highlight event, resembling Option Two. It takes the overall feel of One, and puts it into a grand scheme of Two

As a competitive player, I like option 1. Option 2 sounds fun but I'd prefer to play within the bounds of a known format where I can anticipate and/or understand the meta developments. Option 2 doesn't really provide that for players and I think it will be significantly more difficult for players to figure out what's going on, particularly if decks are mono-colored. A lot of the skill and fun of MTG is being able to mix the different colors in creative ways, and I think option 2 is limiting in this area. Option 1 for me.

I think I like Option 2 the best. A custom format intrigues me, and the prizes sound spectacular.

both sound amazing but i lean a little more towards option # 1

I think woogerworks is down now >.>

DeathByDragons: nope, it works for me, make sure you use play.woogerworks.com

Kk it's back up for me, yeah I was using play.woogerworks.com but for some reason it was refusing connection, but no more. :)

I'm sad this didn't end up happening.

Yeah, it really is. In a few weeks I can try to make a Modern tournament using LackeyCCG if anyone would be interested. Right now I've been hammered with my personal life as of late though.

We're accumulating cards in MTGO to try to make this work.

Awesome, thanks for the update.