After some more experimenting, I'm finding that I'm having more success with playing Extended, which means that not enough people are playing Standard to justify the restrictions being put on getting games during Tourneys. That actually disappoints me, as I like alternate formats in CCGs I play, especially ones that in theory increase the access of new players to the game. But after 10+ games of no opponent followed by the same guy 4 times, I don't have a lot of options. There's still a flaw to the system that needs to be looked at, especially where Standard is concerned, but for now, I'll have to play Extended.

@Bronn1
good to hear you are getting matches now. yes playing extended definitely increases the pool of players and decks you can get matches with.

i agree with you in thinking standard is the future of UR since it is easier for newbies to access. however, as it stands, standard still does not have its own niche that makes it a "must play" format.

Sorry, just have to chime in on this.

Standard is like playing chess with half the pieces arbitrarily removed from the board, and an extra pair of rooks added. It's not easier for newbies, because the rules are altered *arbitrarily.* Cards like Caelus Cr, Spyke, etc. still give a huge advantage to older players, and newbies will still lose to them almost every time. I think Standard's striking unpopularity shows that in its current form, it's not the future of anything.

I completely agree that having a newbie friendly format would be a boon to UR, but Standard is just counter-intuitive in every way. Why not have a level 10-25 room for "ELO with training wheels," with some kind of tournaments separate from both DT and ELO, with lesser prizes to discourage exploit-happy players from rolling new accounts to participate? ELO is our most balanced mode of play. It protects new players from getting crushed by overpowered, too-expensive cards, by default. .. And, thanks to 14 life, these games are less likely to end in a coin flip situation where the game is determined by whether the player who won Round 1 will or won't attempt to KO.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Lol what is this changes?

I just faced the same player 5 times in a row in the same DT. I have a 25* deck, and after counting his *'s. He has 30*'s. So where is this evenly matched players? it's in extended by the way.

Also facing hands of Ambre and 3 5*'s is a little ridiculous when i'm using a 9 card 25* deck.

I'm going to agree with ghelas here, as I so often do on forums. I agree with everything he said, in particular the "arbitrariness" of the standard and "tier" formats. Why those stars? Why those tiers? Does the staff realize that almost every game I play with a normal 23-25 star deck, I end up facing those monstrosity decks with 2 five stars, a 3 star, and Ambre? does the staff not know how discouraging Ambre/Dregn/C Beast/ Sunder hands are to play against? do they not care?

These are the kinds of decks i specifically play low star counts to avoid -- and I'm forced to either:

A: try "tier 1" which has no matches
B: Play tier 2 and accept that I'm going to be matched against some scrub in about 1/5 matches, and instantly lose simply because my deck can't compete with Ambre + 5 stars.

The entire system is exactly as ghelas described it : arbitrary.

Start giving penalties to people who troll with DR's too.

Just faced someone using 6 DRs

Graks/Uranus/Spiaghi/Vermyn/Clover/Ella In random combo's, i didn't see their last two cards. I faced this person 3 times in a row... Ruined DT right off the bat.

A bit late, but I agree with Carnage, it is soooooo off

Maybe, a small penalty for DR?
OR just the max u can have is 2 is a deck ( not including Pussycats)

The problem is you can't give penaltys to Drs with out effecting good Drs and Pussycats (who are actually quite good in DTs).