"Recording" Paper Drafts (stupid idea probably)

[Jason Waddell]

I've had this seedling of an idea for an article type for a while. Basically, anybody remember those draft articles that David Ochoa used to produced? If not, they were articles (written) that would list the cards in each pack, his thought process, and his picks, as well as some brief match synopses at the end. 

I could (theoretically) produce content like that for my paper cube. Ignoring the annoyance of recording picks (for now), is this content that people would even enjoy reading? Or is it completely stupid to follow the draft of an environment that you will never play?

Next, assuming people wanted it, how would you do it? Obviously I don't want to slow the whole draft down by being the only one writing the contents of the packs. Card names take a long time to write. 

One idea would be to use card IDs. Each card could be assigned a number between 1 and 360. Then you only have to write down 1 to 15 numbers for each pack. Afterwards I could use a script to transform those to card names. 

Also, I could print out "pack slips", with 15 lines for card ID's. Then when people open packs, they quickly fill out two slips. Whenever they pick a card they can cross out that card ID. Then, when I select a card, I just circle the ID and keep the slip. A bit tedious, but it feels like the least intrusive way of recording the information. 

[Eric Chan]

I would totally read those articles. I find that draft walkthroughs are almost always universally enjoyable, so long as you have some inkling of knowledge about the format. Drafting is the most important part of the draft (like, duh!), so I'm always looking to learn from those better than me. Having a narrated thought process is the best way to follow and understand the author's card evaluations, in the context of other cards in the pack, the deck they're drafting, and the environment they're facing.

For logistics, could you hold up each pack as you get it, and then snap a photo? You'd have to transcribe the card names afterwards, but at least you wouldn't be holding up the draft nearly as much.

[Jason Waddell]

Have you ever tried to hold 15 cards at once so that everything is visible? 

Also, I don't have a camera. 

[FlowerSunRain]

I'd really like to do this next time I play, but it would be irritating to the other players I think.  If we do a Westchester Draft, it might be even more annoying to copy each grid.  I'm usually the fastest drafter, but I don't think I'm fast enough to record all the important information between picks.

[tomc...@gmail.com]

This would be incredibly useful, although logistically difficult. Early in the life of my cube--when I wasn't getting to actually play it much and was desperate for feedback--I tried something a bit like it over on MTGS. I dealt out eight piles of 15 in a circle, grabbed one, and asked folks to make their P1P1 choice. Then I went around and made the P1P1 selection for all the other seven spots, and passed the packs. I tried hard to have each phantom "drafter" I was mimicking play authentically, and had the forums go through the entire first pack. I thought it worked pretty well.

With help, you could do a variation of that on forums here: Have eight people virtually pass packs and take notes on each selection. You'd have an archive of each drafters pick and justification for those picks. In an article, you could pull out any particularly interesting decision points that emerged at any seat. It would require someone to administer the project, but would be pretty interesting. Setting up games on Cockatice or MWS and actually playing with the decks would be more of a pain, but IMHO not strictly necessary.

[Nathan Weizenbaum]

It seems like the most practical way to do this would be to do a draft on some draft simulator, then play out the matches on MTGO. That would allow you to easily screencap each pack.

[Jason Waddell]

Yes, but that would require me to have more in my collections than two pauper decks. I could try to do it on TappedOut then building the decks with my physical cube and playing. 

[Jason Waddell]

The problem is that I could not actually get 8 of my local drafters to get on TappedOut at the same time. 

Another option is to do this (not great yet): 

Using my list, I could write a script to generate 24 packs. Then, print out those 24 packs onto slips. Have the cube pre-sorted so that people can quickly find the cards for each pack and bundle the cards with their respective list. Then redistribute the packs to other drafters. As you draft you cross out the card with a marker. 

Still brainstorming...

[tomc...@gmail.com]

No-one likes my idea of doing it very, very slowly here on the forums? The person orchestrating it would email the list of cards in each pack to the participants, along with the name of the downstream drafter. They would note their pick, then email the 14 remaining card names to that person. Repeat for the first pack, switch. You'd have a complete record of each pick, along with annotations of why they picked or passed various cards.

Playing the games isn't hard on Cockatrice (still alive!) or MWS, although scheduling might be harder.

[Calvin Chan]

I also really enjoy draft walkthroughs, especially when the draft has a deep understanding of the format.  It may be better in your playgroup, but many players just love to draft their favorite cards and archetypes repeatedly in cube regardless of what anyone around them is doing, and I don't think those walkthroughs would be very enjoyable or helpful.
Like Jason said, taking pictures of each pack during the draft, while keeping your pack a secret from each other player is pretty hard, unless drafters are kept in different rooms.  Recording thoughts, packs, and picks for each pack can get tedious very fast.  I like the idea of pack slips as being fast, while still maintaining the draft experience for the other players.

[Jason Waddell]

Tom, I am not against your idea in theory, but I don't see too much advantage to it over using TappedOut. Well, except for one. TappedOut freezes a lot for me during drafts, say, between Pack 1 and 2. Then I have to start over and it's a mess. Is there better online software out there?

I'm also a little frightened by the organizational effort required. Getting 8 people together in one time zone is tricky enough. 

EDIT: Also, I wouldn't want to do a web draft if we couldn't play the matches somehow. I learn a lot about my deck through the actual matches, and oftentimes find that my perception of how well a deck will play is off the mark. 

[Jason Waddell]

After more thought, here's my plan for paper drafts: 

1) Use a script to randomize my cube into 24 packs. 
2) Print the contents of said packs onto 48 (24 x 2) pack slips. 
3) Sort my cube by color and converted mana cost
4) Hand each player 6 pack slips (3 x 2), and have them build the packs
5) After all packs are built, put them face-down on the table w/ their pack slips and randomly redistribute packs
6) Give each other player a marker
7) Whenever you select a card, you cross it out from your pack slip(s) with marker
8) Whenever I select a card, I circle it on the slip and put the slip in a box. 

Disadvantages are players possibly remembering pack contents, but I don't think that's really a huge issue. Another possible disadvantage of people sniffing markers. 

Advantages: 

very fast during the draft itself, as we frontload all the work. Crossing out a line with marker should be quick enough. 

All the packs will be saved on my PC, eliminating the need to transcribe handwriting, decode from a card ID system (1-360), and making the article writing process faster

On Friday, April 19, 2013 7:13:37 AM UTC+2, Jason Waddell wrote:

Tom, I am not against your idea in theory, but I don't see too much advantage to it over using TappedOut. Well, except for one. TappedOut freezes a lot for me during drafts, say, between Pack 1 and 2. Then I have to start over and it's a mess. Is there better online software out there?

I'm also a little frightened by the organizational effort required. Getting 8 people together in one time zone is tricky enough. 

On Friday, April 19, 2013 1:42:26 AM UTC+2, tomc...@gmail.com wrote: