If you want to reduce the effect of IDs just increase tournament length by 1 round. In essence all the ID does is reduce the length of the event for players that do well in the earlier rounds. It's not a big deal. Who cares if the rounds that matter are only the first 6 and the 7th is basically for the last few to get in? Heck you could even structure it that way on purpose. If you wanted to you could out right state that by round X-1 the top 4 players dont have to play round X, they are guaranteed a top 8 spot and round X is to figure out the rest of the top 8.
A player has zero control over an opponent who is terrible at piloting his deck. He has no control over how fast or slow his opponent want to play the game. A player should never be punished by receiving 0 points simply because he was paired with someone without a grasp on proper tournament play.
This is a highly misleading post that implies giving a player one point solves the problem of slow play. One point is of little consolation to an excellent player performing at a reasonable pace who nonetheless winds up with a draw on round one and finds himself with several more later on because he is in "draw bracket control mirror" territory. Everyone knows that draws breed more draws, so a draw in round one is a highly undesirable outcome either way (I've seen Adrian Sullivan play game 3 of a UW control mirror at a blistering, almost inhuman pace just to avoid it).
Furthermore, the length of the game is determined by the pace of both players as well as their deck choices. Each player has complete control over his half of that equation, and if the opponent is playing too slowly there is a recourse: calling a judge to watch for slow play.
Thus, whether one or zero points is awarded for a draw, players will still be at the mercy of round one pairings on some level. The punishment for getting an unlucky pairing is potentially more severe under a zero-point system, which makes a one-point system marginally better in terms of round one specifically, but a zero-point system confers additional fairness in the last round when more players are forced to play it out. The swiss system is designed to develop an increasingly accurate ranking of players the more rounds are played, thus having more players playing more rounds necessarily generates a more accurate top 8.
There is also the fact that the one-point system creates incentives to intentionally draw in the last round, which eliminates any gains in fairness from round one by creating new unfairness in the final round. This new unfairness is even exacerbated by the fact that the affected players will all be in the upper half of performance compared to the entire field, as opposed to the random sampling of players who get screwed in round one under a zero-point system. Add to this the additional component that the unfairness manifests later in the day, which means the players getting screwed will have invested much more time into the tournament as opposed to if they had gotten the shaft in round one and had the option of simply calling it a day after using up only one round's worth of time.
In addition to the above, a zero-point system confers no incentive for the losing player to play slowly because he will get zero points either way, which not only improves the accuracy of the top 8 but also generates logistical benefits in the form of faster rounds.
IMHO, the most important concern is that a player should never have an incentive to play slowly, or to not play at all.
TLDR:
1. Awarding zero points for a draw will screw over a random sampling of players from the entire field in round one, with those players having only partial control over this phenomenon. Awarding one point for a draw will screw over a random sampling of players who have outperformed the field and are almost but not quite positioned well enough to make top 8 in the final round, with those players having no control over this phenomenon at all.
2. Awarding one point for a draw creates logistical problems by giving an incentive for losing players to play slowly and creating a "draw bracket" that is statistically more likely to generate more and more draws throughout the day. This screws over more and more players while also maximizing the chance that a round will not finish on time.
How about denying the opponent of any points? There are scenarios where a losing player will still make the cut with a zero points match but the opponent won't.
All this really means is that "sometimes zero points for a draw is just as bad as one point for a draw". I think it's well worth it to adopt a system that in the worst case is just as bad as the current one, but often is better.
Or it could happen even in the early rounds, you just want to see your opponent get zero. Why give someone that much control over the opponent?
The opponent already has a similar level of control. He can give you a one in the current system as surely as he can give you a zero in the alternative system. The differences are:
1. With respect to that round specifically, you are better off with one point than with zero
2. With respect to succeeding rounds, you are less likely to be put in a position of getting even more draws with zero points as opposed to one
So there is really no solving that problem either way. You either get one point and are put in the "draw bracket" or you get zero points but no "draw bracket" exists at all. Plus all this conjecture assumes that the player getting screwed is in fact legitimately more skilled than his opponent. Assuming that is the case, even if he gets screwed more mightily in a zero-point system, he would also have more rounds to make it up (no draw bracket, more rounds actually get played).
This is a highly misleading post that implies giving a player one point solves the problem of slow play. One point is of little consolation to an excellent player performing at a reasonable pace who nonetheless winds up with a draw on round one and finds himself with several more later on because he is in "draw bracket control mirror" territory. Everyone knows that draws breed more draws, so a draw in round one is a highly undesirable outcome either way (I've seen Adrian Sullivan play game 3 of a UW control mirror at a blistering, almost inhuman pace just to avoid it).
Furthermore, the length of the game is determined by the pace of both players as well as their deck choices. Each player has complete control over his half of that equation, and if the opponent is playing too slowly there is a recourse: calling a judge to watch for slow play.
Professional players understand the importance of not drawing. Grinders playing Local Joe Schmoe with his lifegain deck at a PTQ shouldn't be punished because their opponent is not a higher caliper player and causes them to go to time. I'd rather conceed to avoid a draw in certain metagames. Does that mean that all draws should yield zero points? I've taken draws and sat down between 4 tables of mono-red aggro players in the draw bracket. It took me all of 5 minutes to realize that draws getting points are a nessisarry evil because of the legal pace in which some players casually play the game in a higher level tournament.
Your conclusion is that all draws need 0 points because players will play slowly on purpose to gain a point. Any player who does that is not a player playing at a high level anyway. Your conclusion is flawed because not every player plays magic, nor can they, at a professional pace. Not every deck can be piloted to a 10 minute win. There are situations which any player, high or low skill, needs time to consider.
Your concern that ID's are unfair to people who lose early is not a valid reason to have some players tournaments completely totalled if they run into a casual playing. Not to mention that i'm sure a decent amount of times, X-1's who ID would make it on breakers regardless. The ID, at a maximum, can only benefit 2-4 players a tournament. I'd say that maximum is far better than players getting irate at opponents when they take a 30 second turn, because if they don't play faster, they both lose. It's moronic to think that a hostile room like that is conducive to a better tournament enviroment.
Your concern that ID's are unfair to people who lose early is not a valid reason to have some players tournaments completely totalled if they run into a casual playing.
As I have already said before, someone is going to get screwed whether draws award one or zero points. In a zero-point system the player who gets paired with an unreasonably slow opponent, while both of them are using relatively slow decks, with the judge incorrectly concluding that slow play should not be called, gets screwed. I think we can both agree that if not all of the above are true, there is really nothing to complain about. If the opponent is not slow there is no problem, but even if he is slow if the decks are relatively quick it shouldn't be a problem, but even if the opponent is slow and the decks are not so fast there is still the final line of defense -> calling a judge to watch for slow play. Unless all of the above are true, I think the draw is on both players and have no sympathy for them whether they get one or zero points.
But let's examine this further. Even if the player above is indeed getting screwed, and we award him a point, it's not like he's being "made whole". He's still getting screwed, only not as hard (one point is still less than three, and he's now in the "draw bracket").
On the other hand, with zero points he's getting screwed harder in terms of standings for that round (zero points is less than one) but he's not in a "draw bracket" and the lack of final round IDs will give him one more round to win and make it in to top 8.
The one-point system, by contrast, screws those people who lost early and then proceeded to outperform most of the field. No one who got a bad record is getting screwed by IDs. Only the better players who lost earlier get screwed by IDs. Even without the ameliorating effect of "no draw bracket" and "one more round to make top 8" I described above, I would prefer to screw over a random dude in the whole tournament rather than a subset of those people who already outperformed most of the other players.
Players should not be rewarded for not playing magic. Writing down a match result that you know is false should be grounds for a DQ. Lying to a judge is already grounds for DQ, why is writing down 1-1 draw on the slip exempt from that rule?
Players should not be rewarded for not playing magic. Writing down a match result that you know is false should be grounds for a DQ. Lying to a judge is already grounds for DQ, why is writing down 1-1 draw on the slip exempt from that rule?
They aren't awarded for not playing magic, they are awarded for winning the rounds leading up to the draw.
Writing down an actual false result (e.g. you agree to draw and then write 2-0) could easily get you DQed.
The match result isn't false, and you are not lying to a judge. You are allowed to draw intentionally, as long as your opponent agrees, just as you are allowed to concede a game or match. This is provided there's no bribing etc. going on.
We have this exact thread every 1-2 months, and not a single original thought is ever contributed to the subject. Why is it the only people I ever see complaining about this issue are (a) those not successful enough to be in a position to draw, (b) non-competitve (FNM / local events) players, or (c) both? I've never once heard a complaint about this at the tables of serious events.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
We have this exact thread every 1-2 months, and not a single original thought is ever contributed to the subject. Why is it the only people I ever see complaining about this issue are (a) those not successful enough to be in a position to draw, (b) non-competitve (FNM / local events) players, or (c) both? I've never once heard a complaint about this at the tables of serious events.
Its quite simpel, it doesnt effect you if you use the draw for your own gain, then you play the system and thats it.
The actual "problem" of the ID isnt complicated, so its solution isnt complicated aswell, and any "solution" that is crazy complicated would not help anyway.
Give a draw 0 points and you will simply have people play it out, your end result is, you get actual "good" players in the finals and a bigger range of players aswell ; simply because a player that loses the last round, instead of drawing into the top 8 might be 9-10 place instead, so you see a different face.
The basic principle of "you dont play, you get 0 points" ; as easy as that.
In the end truly drawing a game by time that is close, might be required to be different than an actual ID.
Percentage wise it is.
A 1-1-1 game has a different % score compared to the 0-0-3 a ID "should" be, but sadly this has just a tiny effect, as a draw also means 1 point.
Its also not a problem that is crazy problematic, its just inconvenient, especially if the game wants to upgrade on its "serious" aspect to be a competitive game ; as IDs are in general highly inconvenient for any serious sport.
Even fairness wise, if a player loses every game, is it "fair" that a person that just draws every game actual isnt last ?
For my understanding of fairness it isnt.
If a draw translates into both players win, its a pretty bogus scenario ; if only a win counts for points, the goal is clear, play the game, win the game, dont waste time to risk getting into time, and everyone plays, nobody gets a free break, the top 8 of the last round wont just draw into the finals, they will play it, one of them will lose, end result of the top 8 is a better representation of the actual swiss, while draws fake that result.
In an 8 person FNM the "problem" of the finals drawing is especially visible and effects potentially all the players that are 1-1 ; if the final draws, neither has a chance to get 2nd, if 1 wins and 1 loses, the end result is an actual representation of the tournament and not a pseudo Single Elimination of 2 rounds (as that is actual what the draw in the final produces, and thats not what players actual want to have in a 3 round swiss).
Also, while every player can choose NOT to ID a game, it is simply expected and not doing so, will produce quite a bad vibe in the tournament ; so the general structure has a very forcing nature to make you ID, as its simply the only logical way to do, no matter how the players would truly think about it (some might not even care, they might not think about it, and just do what they are told).
Give a draw 0 points and you will simply have people play it out, your end result is, you get actual "good" players in the finals and a bigger range of players aswell . . .
We already have good players in the elimination rounds, and no, you wouldn't have a bigger range of players. The ones that are already good enough to get there will continue to get there. The ones that aren't would not. The only players this truly affects are those who are x-1 going into the final round, and those are already win-and-in players. If you're X-2 going into a final round, X-1 players already have to play to get it most of the time. Winning your last X-2 round doesn't save you (Trust me, I've been X-2 plenty of times, and not once would eliminating draws have made a difference). X-0 players can still lose and get in most of the time, and they're generally the only ones in a position to draw. The only exception to these rules would be when you have a very large tournament (more than 12 rounds I believe - someone smarter than me throw out the exact numbers). So in changing the dynamics of ID's, you're talking about a change that would affect a small-to-insubstantial percentage of games.
Again, this all just sounds like a case of hurt feelings from people who aren't in a position to draw in. Any excuse to show why they should've made it and didn't will suffice, and ID's are an easy target. The whole "Make draws count for 0 points" system has been dissected ad nauseam throughout the countless threads we've had on this topic, so I won't bother going into it again. Suffice to say that it causes just as many problems as it solves, if not more.
EDIT: Just re-read your comment regarding 8-man FNMs. This is the other big problem with these discussions. You've got competitive players discussing the issue with FNM players, whose views on the subject will be wildly different based solely on the number of rounds involved on these tournaments.
The problem is that your success rate stems from the order in which you play your matches, instead of the decks/play themselves.
This is it. Basically people would like to minimize the impact of non-player factors such as random pairings. Personally, I cannot imagine how anyone would think there is no problem with a system wherein participants in a tournament that supposedly wants to reward the "best player", are given an incentive to "not play". I think it's fine to say "there are problems with the current system but there is no good way to solve them", but to simply wave it all away seems remarkably oblivious.
Very small tournament
If people don't like the ID rules, then it is up to the LGS owner to set prizes that make it not matter. If the LGS owner is only giving prize packs to the top 2, then it is up to the LGS owner to maybe drop prizes to the top 3 or top 4. Otherwise, they cannot complain.
Mid size tournament (15+)
There are enough rounds in the tournament to where if people don't make the cut or the prize cut, then they only have themselves to blame. Winners put themselves in a position to win. Losers cry about ID's. If you want to make prizes, you should have been in the position to decide on an ID, not watch others decide on the ID.
Large tournaments
It's really a non-issue here, because the bubble to Day 2 is so large and it's usually x-2 so it doesn't come into play much here.
Very small tournament
If people don't like the ID rules, then it is up to the LGS owner to set prizes that make it not matter. If the LGS owner is only giving prize packs to the top 2, then it is up to the LGS owner to maybe drop prizes to the top 3 or top 4. Otherwise, they cannot complain.
Mid size tournament (15+)
There are enough rounds in the tournament to where if people don't make the cut or the prize cut, then they only have themselves to blame. Winners put themselves in a position to win. Losers cry about ID's. If you want to make prizes, you should have been in the position to decide on an ID, not watch others decide on the ID.
Large tournaments
It's really a non-issue here, because the bubble to Day 2 is so large and it's usually x-2 so it doesn't come into play much here.
That seems to be the rub. I'm getting the impression that a lot of the complaining on IDs is at the FNM/small tournament level. I'm sure it has a bigger impact at that level.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
In all my years of playing ptqs, gps or scg opens, I have never heard of good players complain about intentional drawing.
It is just common knowledge at this point. If you breakers are good enough for you to ID into eliminattion rounds, then your opponents were probably good Magic players. If your breakers are not good enough to ID with, then your opponents were probably less than compenent.
Understand, Dredge is not really a Magic: The Gathering deck. When a card is playable in it, it doesn't mean it's a tournament playable card. It means it's playable in whatever crazy fantasy world that Dredge operates in.
In all my years of playing ptqs, gps or scg opens, I have never heard of good players complain about intentional drawing.
That's the sentiment that's been echoed by competitive players throughout these threads, myself included. At a serious level, it's a non-issue. I don't say that to belittle FNM players or the more casual crowd. I play FNM's all the time too. I say it only to point out that these are the people lobbying the complaints about the system, because that's the only level on which this has any sort of significant impact.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
Well the whole point is, if its "beneficial" to you, theirs no reason to complain.
Makes no sence, ya know.
So it still depends who you ask, and its not like a hot topic in a grand prix / ptq to ask people if they like IDs or not ; its just common sence to use the system and ID if you get a clear shot for the top 8 , its not a matter of "like it" , its just is that way.
The whole discussion here is about if its "fair" and if the actual ID promotes players to either slow-play, get in time, or produces other side-effects (like the draw-bracket).
As i pointed it out quite a lot, the deal is ; "not playing = no benefits" ; both players going for an ID is just working the system, which is never cool if the game comes down to a sportsmanship level, its clearly competitive, but it still upsets players as its against their intuitive feeling.
So an easy thing to imagine is a world in which draw means 0 points. What exactly would it have an impact on a tournament ? Players would actual play it out and not ID ; it will remove the draw-bracket (especially important in bigger tournaments) , and it will indeed increase the "range" of players into the top 8, for the reason alone, that 2 players that are undefeated still have to battle it out before the top 8, one of them will lose and another player will be in the top 8 instead ; gives us more versatality.
And to make it perfectly clear, just because you ID into the top 8 of an tournament or to get the prices in your FNM, its not a matter of "like it" its just that you want that guaranteed boost in monetary gain ; it would be silly to refuse a 100% good thing (while you still can, it just doesnt make much sence as that 1 point makes it just *pointless*).
but what about the people who DO play but still draw? then "playing=no benefits".
and honestly, if two guys are vying for the 1 and 2 seed, then they are guaranteed a slot in the Top Eight, it doesn't matter who wins at that point, it just matters for the seed in the top eight, which the loser might still get the 2 seed because, potentially, his ONLY LOSS of the night was to the one who went UNDEFEATED, and he had beaten players with good records all night.
Now, if you make draws 0 points, then the "draw bracket" becomes part of the "loser bracket", leading potentially to more draws, and fewer points earned by people, and less and less chances to catch up and actually make top 8.
If I draw round 1, I would get the same amount of points as a loss, even though I did not lose. How is that fair, that I essentially get penalized for honestly trying my best and NOT LOSING?
Intentional Draws affect the Top 8, yes. this is true. But, having Draws=Losses for both players will affect the course of the ENTIRE TOURNAMENT.
What's next? are you going to start criticizing the game for being too reliant on random card draws?
I've been pointing out that MtG is a fairly random, high variance game for years. MaRo specifically said that the game is designed to prevent skilled players from being dominant. From my perspective as a competitive player, this is a point against the game. From his point of view as a merchant, this is a desirable outcome (unskilled players have an incentive to try and get lucky, skilled players need to play more games to overcome the variance). I don't agree with him, but I understand MaRo's point. He's not wrong on the facts. We just have different perspectives and priorities.
but what about the people who DO play but still draw? then "playing=no benefits".
The deal with draws is that it encourages players to "no lose" , and the other way it encourages you to actual "win" the game. If you cant win, you just lost.
If a game goes to time and you WON game 1, and the 2nd game is a draw, you are still the Winner, you WON a game, and your opponent didnt.
If you both won 2 games, its an actual "true" draw, which is indeed different to an ID; but currently both give 1 point regardless, which is a problem.
So indeed as you pointed it out aswell, the actual results matter not enough to represent the actual points you gain.
For example, you could indeed give a player 1 point for a won game and 2 points for 2 won games, which would result in a different structure for the points.
Rather than win (no matter how) = 3 points
We give 1 point for each win, if you win 2 games, you win the match, but in the end, winning the match does matter less if you can beat all your opponents in 1 game and lose the 2nd, you would still have points, not 0 ; which might be a better way to look at the results.
Current structure just wants you to either win, or not lose ; the results matter not much, unless in direct comparision (OpScore , OpMatchWin etc. pp.) ; which is also not really in the hands of the player, as pairings are random.
and honestly, if two guys are vying for the 1 and 2 seed, then they are guaranteed a slot in the Top Eight, it doesn't matter who wins at that point, it just matters for the seed in the top eight, which the loser might still get the 2 seed because, potentially, his ONLY LOSS of the night was to the one who went UNDEFEATED, and he had beaten players with good records all night.
Well in a draft with 8 persons for example it is absolute possible that the 1&2 player will be 1st and 3rd after they actual play it out, rather than ID, which "guarantees" both to be 1&2, due to the 1 point. So thats what i wanted to point it, if an ID happens, the last round changes nothing about the results for place 1&2, while 0 point draw actual does matter, depending on the outcome.
Now, if you make draws 0 points, then the "draw bracket" becomes part of the "loser bracket", leading potentially to more draws, and fewer points earned by people, and less and less chances to catch up and actually make top 8.
Thats not true.
The persons in a big tournament that actual "draw" are either slow-players, either have a deck that is prone to a draw (as its slow and grindy) OR they just had a bad game that didnt finish.
So if you simply put them in the loser bracket, they are mixed with fresh players, no problem here, no more draws.
The draw-bracket however, actual increases the changes that the players will draw again. In legacy the exmaple for this is Landstill Controll decks. They really tend to get draws, especially in a Mirror, so the draw-bracket will increase the chance by A LOT to get another mirror.
For like 200 players and 8 land-still decks, the chance that they will play againts each other in a draw-bracket is huge ; thats why it was a legimate strategy to concede instead of getting the "draw" to avoid that exact situation. Especially in legacy its quite unusual to get in time, unless a player is simply slow or plays a deck prone to wasting time (like Counterbalance + Top eats tons of time, and grindy matchups of topdecks can eat tons of time, like a mirror of punishing fire and such stuff). So if players know a draw = 0 points, it will encourage you to play faster, and if it does not, it would change pretty much nothing anyway ; but for some it does and we just dont have the draw-bracket at all, so any problem with that, doesnt exist.
If I draw round 1, I would get the same amount of points as a loss, even though I did not lose. How is that fair, that I essentially get penalized for honestly trying my best and NOT LOSING?
Yes, you didnt win, you wasted tons of time for everyone going into time, so you dont get any benefits for doing so.
I would not consider it any "skill" to get a draw, either win or lose, a draw is both players didnt win (which is more fair than "both kinda won a little").
A different point system could factor in the won games instead of focus on matches, which would change the tournament structure by quite a margin (its a big impact, as the 1st game matters much more, as right now, the 2nd&3rd games with sideboards matter more).
Intentional Draws affect the Top 8, yes. this is true. But, having Draws=Losses for both players will affect the course of the ENTIRE TOURNAMENT.
Thats how it should be. No matter "when" you ID, if you choose to not play, you dont get any benefits for doing so.
The actual impacts it has are not hurting the tournament, it contributes to a faster and streamlined event and as i pointed out, a bigger variety of players in the top 8 (as some X-1 will lose instead of ID, so some X-2 will have a shot for the top 8, which otherwise would not be possible at all).
As for pretty much everyone here its just theoretical, i must say in my playgroups we tested the draw=0 points for quite a time in non-sanctioned formats (private drafts, EDH-tournaments and such) ; and it shows me absolutely that the numbers of actual draws is way smaller and we actual have exactly 0 IDs as theirs simply no benefit at all to ID ; games are played out and it has a good signal to the players that indeed each round is played, nobody skips any match.
Especially in EDH the draw-bracket was a problem, and this completly removes this situations.
In practicle observation i really believe draw=0 points is strictly superior.
A more complex method would be the points for games won, instead of matches, but thats kinda more complicated as it goes deeper.
That's the sentiment that's been echoed by competitive players throughout these threads, myself included. At a serious level, it's a non-issue. I don't say that to belittle FNM players or the more casual crowd. I play FNM's all the time too. I say it only to point out that these are the people lobbying the complaints about the system, because that's the only level on which this has any sort of significant impact.
Never underestimate self interest.
And you do kinda say it to be little FNM players and create an 'us and them' mentality.
Ask any non magic players and 'non high level' players about it and I think you will get the same response what does that say?
Double elimination is a tournament format that is not conducive to IDs.
Thing is, double elim takes longer to play out than Swiss, and doesn't work with every number of players.
There are (at least) three problems with double elimination:
1) Some players want to play all rounds of a Swiss instead of being forced to "drop" after two losses;
2) Double elimination does a terrible job of ranking those teams that are not 1st and 2nd; and
3) There would be no draws allowed from the start (which may not be a bad thing in theory, but is a terrible thing in practice because the events would take forever).
I do think there are some changes to Conditions of Contest that could reduce the incentives to concede or ID:
1) Eliminate draws in the last round of a Swiss, treat it like an elimination round and play all matches out; and
2) No X-1 or X-1-1 player will be paired down to play an X-2 player in the last round, instead give an X-0 player (or all X-O players of there are an odd number) a bye.
I am sure there is a flaw to #2, but there must be some way to arrange last round pairings such that there is seldom, if ever, any benefit to conceding.
Double elimination is a tournament format that is not conducive to IDs.
Thing is, double elim takes longer to play out than Swiss, and doesn't work with every number of players.
If by "longer" you mean a 300 man tournament (ie GP level and above), will take *months* to complete, sure. Even a 30 man tournament will take a week (specifically, 2n-1 or 2n-2, where n is the number of players, so if there are 30 players, you'd have to play 58 to 59 games; assuming you play 1 game an hour, 8 hours a day, that's at least 7+ days playing for ONE tournament at the level of most FNMs)
That's not just "longer". That's flat out impossible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Double elimination is a tournament format that is not conducive to IDs.
Thing is, double elim takes longer to play out than Swiss, and doesn't work with every number of players.
If by "longer" you mean a 300 man tournament (ie GP level and above), will take *months* to complete, sure. Even a 30 man tournament will take a week (specifically, 2n-1 or 2n-2, where n is the number of players, so if there are 30 players, you'd have to play 58 to 59 games; assuming you play 1 game an hour, 8 hours a day, that's at least 7+ days playing for ONE tournament at the level of most FNMs)
That's not just "longer". That's flat out impossible.
Why are you only playing one match at a time. If you have a 16 player double elimination tournament? There will be 8 matches being played in both the 1st and 2nd round. Relative to a single elimination tournament, the double elimination tournament will only take 1 or 2 rounds more, and only 2 players will be playing the extra rounds.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
This is a highly misleading post that implies giving a player one point solves the problem of slow play. One point is of little consolation to an excellent player performing at a reasonable pace who nonetheless winds up with a draw on round one and finds himself with several more later on because he is in "draw bracket control mirror" territory. Everyone knows that draws breed more draws, so a draw in round one is a highly undesirable outcome either way (I've seen Adrian Sullivan play game 3 of a UW control mirror at a blistering, almost inhuman pace just to avoid it).
Furthermore, the length of the game is determined by the pace of both players as well as their deck choices. Each player has complete control over his half of that equation, and if the opponent is playing too slowly there is a recourse: calling a judge to watch for slow play.
Thus, whether one or zero points is awarded for a draw, players will still be at the mercy of round one pairings on some level. The punishment for getting an unlucky pairing is potentially more severe under a zero-point system, which makes a one-point system marginally better in terms of round one specifically, but a zero-point system confers additional fairness in the last round when more players are forced to play it out. The swiss system is designed to develop an increasingly accurate ranking of players the more rounds are played, thus having more players playing more rounds necessarily generates a more accurate top 8.
There is also the fact that the one-point system creates incentives to intentionally draw in the last round, which eliminates any gains in fairness from round one by creating new unfairness in the final round. This new unfairness is even exacerbated by the fact that the affected players will all be in the upper half of performance compared to the entire field, as opposed to the random sampling of players who get screwed in round one under a zero-point system. Add to this the additional component that the unfairness manifests later in the day, which means the players getting screwed will have invested much more time into the tournament as opposed to if they had gotten the shaft in round one and had the option of simply calling it a day after using up only one round's worth of time.
In addition to the above, a zero-point system confers no incentive for the losing player to play slowly because he will get zero points either way, which not only improves the accuracy of the top 8 but also generates logistical benefits in the form of faster rounds.
IMHO, the most important concern is that a player should never have an incentive to play slowly, or to not play at all.
TLDR:
1. Awarding zero points for a draw will screw over a random sampling of players from the entire field in round one, with those players having only partial control over this phenomenon. Awarding one point for a draw will screw over a random sampling of players who have outperformed the field and are almost but not quite positioned well enough to make top 8 in the final round, with those players having no control over this phenomenon at all.
2. Awarding one point for a draw creates logistical problems by giving an incentive for losing players to play slowly and creating a "draw bracket" that is statistically more likely to generate more and more draws throughout the day. This screws over more and more players while also maximizing the chance that a round will not finish on time.
All this really means is that "sometimes zero points for a draw is just as bad as one point for a draw". I think it's well worth it to adopt a system that in the worst case is just as bad as the current one, but often is better.
The opponent already has a similar level of control. He can give you a one in the current system as surely as he can give you a zero in the alternative system. The differences are:
1. With respect to that round specifically, you are better off with one point than with zero
2. With respect to succeeding rounds, you are less likely to be put in a position of getting even more draws with zero points as opposed to one
So there is really no solving that problem either way. You either get one point and are put in the "draw bracket" or you get zero points but no "draw bracket" exists at all. Plus all this conjecture assumes that the player getting screwed is in fact legitimately more skilled than his opponent. Assuming that is the case, even if he gets screwed more mightily in a zero-point system, he would also have more rounds to make it up (no draw bracket, more rounds actually get played).
Professional players understand the importance of not drawing. Grinders playing Local Joe Schmoe with his lifegain deck at a PTQ shouldn't be punished because their opponent is not a higher caliper player and causes them to go to time. I'd rather conceed to avoid a draw in certain metagames. Does that mean that all draws should yield zero points? I've taken draws and sat down between 4 tables of mono-red aggro players in the draw bracket. It took me all of 5 minutes to realize that draws getting points are a nessisarry evil because of the legal pace in which some players casually play the game in a higher level tournament.
Your conclusion is that all draws need 0 points because players will play slowly on purpose to gain a point. Any player who does that is not a player playing at a high level anyway. Your conclusion is flawed because not every player plays magic, nor can they, at a professional pace. Not every deck can be piloted to a 10 minute win. There are situations which any player, high or low skill, needs time to consider.
Your concern that ID's are unfair to people who lose early is not a valid reason to have some players tournaments completely totalled if they run into a casual playing. Not to mention that i'm sure a decent amount of times, X-1's who ID would make it on breakers regardless. The ID, at a maximum, can only benefit 2-4 players a tournament. I'd say that maximum is far better than players getting irate at opponents when they take a 30 second turn, because if they don't play faster, they both lose. It's moronic to think that a hostile room like that is conducive to a better tournament enviroment.
My wife was on MTV with this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUutIZg2EpU
As I have already said before, someone is going to get screwed whether draws award one or zero points. In a zero-point system the player who gets paired with an unreasonably slow opponent, while both of them are using relatively slow decks, with the judge incorrectly concluding that slow play should not be called, gets screwed. I think we can both agree that if not all of the above are true, there is really nothing to complain about. If the opponent is not slow there is no problem, but even if he is slow if the decks are relatively quick it shouldn't be a problem, but even if the opponent is slow and the decks are not so fast there is still the final line of defense -> calling a judge to watch for slow play. Unless all of the above are true, I think the draw is on both players and have no sympathy for them whether they get one or zero points.
But let's examine this further. Even if the player above is indeed getting screwed, and we award him a point, it's not like he's being "made whole". He's still getting screwed, only not as hard (one point is still less than three, and he's now in the "draw bracket").
On the other hand, with zero points he's getting screwed harder in terms of standings for that round (zero points is less than one) but he's not in a "draw bracket" and the lack of final round IDs will give him one more round to win and make it in to top 8.
The one-point system, by contrast, screws those people who lost early and then proceeded to outperform most of the field. No one who got a bad record is getting screwed by IDs. Only the better players who lost earlier get screwed by IDs. Even without the ameliorating effect of "no draw bracket" and "one more round to make top 8" I described above, I would prefer to screw over a random dude in the whole tournament rather than a subset of those people who already outperformed most of the other players.
They aren't awarded for not playing magic, they are awarded for winning the rounds leading up to the draw.
Writing down an actual false result (e.g. you agree to draw and then write 2-0) could easily get you DQed.
The match result isn't false, and you are not lying to a judge. You are allowed to draw intentionally, as long as your opponent agrees, just as you are allowed to concede a game or match. This is provided there's no bribing etc. going on.
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
Its quite simpel, it doesnt effect you if you use the draw for your own gain, then you play the system and thats it.
The actual "problem" of the ID isnt complicated, so its solution isnt complicated aswell, and any "solution" that is crazy complicated would not help anyway.
Give a draw 0 points and you will simply have people play it out, your end result is, you get actual "good" players in the finals and a bigger range of players aswell ; simply because a player that loses the last round, instead of drawing into the top 8 might be 9-10 place instead, so you see a different face.
The basic principle of "you dont play, you get 0 points" ; as easy as that.
In the end truly drawing a game by time that is close, might be required to be different than an actual ID.
Percentage wise it is.
A 1-1-1 game has a different % score compared to the 0-0-3 a ID "should" be, but sadly this has just a tiny effect, as a draw also means 1 point.
Its also not a problem that is crazy problematic, its just inconvenient, especially if the game wants to upgrade on its "serious" aspect to be a competitive game ; as IDs are in general highly inconvenient for any serious sport.
Even fairness wise, if a player loses every game, is it "fair" that a person that just draws every game actual isnt last ?
For my understanding of fairness it isnt.
If a draw translates into both players win, its a pretty bogus scenario ; if only a win counts for points, the goal is clear, play the game, win the game, dont waste time to risk getting into time, and everyone plays, nobody gets a free break, the top 8 of the last round wont just draw into the finals, they will play it, one of them will lose, end result of the top 8 is a better representation of the actual swiss, while draws fake that result.
In an 8 person FNM the "problem" of the finals drawing is especially visible and effects potentially all the players that are 1-1 ; if the final draws, neither has a chance to get 2nd, if 1 wins and 1 loses, the end result is an actual representation of the tournament and not a pseudo Single Elimination of 2 rounds (as that is actual what the draw in the final produces, and thats not what players actual want to have in a 3 round swiss).
Also, while every player can choose NOT to ID a game, it is simply expected and not doing so, will produce quite a bad vibe in the tournament ; so the general structure has a very forcing nature to make you ID, as its simply the only logical way to do, no matter how the players would truly think about it (some might not even care, they might not think about it, and just do what they are told).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
We already have good players in the elimination rounds, and no, you wouldn't have a bigger range of players. The ones that are already good enough to get there will continue to get there. The ones that aren't would not. The only players this truly affects are those who are x-1 going into the final round, and those are already win-and-in players. If you're X-2 going into a final round, X-1 players already have to play to get it most of the time. Winning your last X-2 round doesn't save you (Trust me, I've been X-2 plenty of times, and not once would eliminating draws have made a difference). X-0 players can still lose and get in most of the time, and they're generally the only ones in a position to draw. The only exception to these rules would be when you have a very large tournament (more than 12 rounds I believe - someone smarter than me throw out the exact numbers). So in changing the dynamics of ID's, you're talking about a change that would affect a small-to-insubstantial percentage of games.
Again, this all just sounds like a case of hurt feelings from people who aren't in a position to draw in. Any excuse to show why they should've made it and didn't will suffice, and ID's are an easy target. The whole "Make draws count for 0 points" system has been dissected ad nauseam throughout the countless threads we've had on this topic, so I won't bother going into it again. Suffice to say that it causes just as many problems as it solves, if not more.
EDIT: Just re-read your comment regarding 8-man FNMs. This is the other big problem with these discussions. You've got competitive players discussing the issue with FNM players, whose views on the subject will be wildly different based solely on the number of rounds involved on these tournaments.
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
What's next? are you going to start criticizing the game for being too reliant on random card draws?
Here are three scenarios:
Very small tournament
If people don't like the ID rules, then it is up to the LGS owner to set prizes that make it not matter. If the LGS owner is only giving prize packs to the top 2, then it is up to the LGS owner to maybe drop prizes to the top 3 or top 4. Otherwise, they cannot complain.
Mid size tournament (15+)
There are enough rounds in the tournament to where if people don't make the cut or the prize cut, then they only have themselves to blame. Winners put themselves in a position to win. Losers cry about ID's. If you want to make prizes, you should have been in the position to decide on an ID, not watch others decide on the ID.
Large tournaments
It's really a non-issue here, because the bubble to Day 2 is so large and it's usually x-2 so it doesn't come into play much here.
That seems to be the rub. I'm getting the impression that a lot of the complaining on IDs is at the FNM/small tournament level. I'm sure it has a bigger impact at that level.
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
Thank god its just your impression.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
It is just common knowledge at this point. If you breakers are good enough for you to ID into eliminattion rounds, then your opponents were probably good Magic players. If your breakers are not good enough to ID with, then your opponents were probably less than compenent.
Modern:
Something new every week
Legacy:
Something new everyweek
If all you've got is a snarky, vaguely insulting response, then I don't know what to tell you.
But...
That's the sentiment that's been echoed by competitive players throughout these threads, myself included. At a serious level, it's a non-issue. I don't say that to belittle FNM players or the more casual crowd. I play FNM's all the time too. I say it only to point out that these are the people lobbying the complaints about the system, because that's the only level on which this has any sort of significant impact.
Standard: I, for one, welcome our new rhinoceros overlords
Modern: Pod's dead, Bob's back.
Legacy: Lands, Deathblade, Death and Taxes, Elves, MUD
Retired Legacy: Merfolk, Goblins, Jund, Delver, Reanimator
Makes no sence, ya know.
So it still depends who you ask, and its not like a hot topic in a grand prix / ptq to ask people if they like IDs or not ; its just common sence to use the system and ID if you get a clear shot for the top 8 , its not a matter of "like it" , its just is that way.
The whole discussion here is about if its "fair" and if the actual ID promotes players to either slow-play, get in time, or produces other side-effects (like the draw-bracket).
As i pointed it out quite a lot, the deal is ; "not playing = no benefits" ; both players going for an ID is just working the system, which is never cool if the game comes down to a sportsmanship level, its clearly competitive, but it still upsets players as its against their intuitive feeling.
So an easy thing to imagine is a world in which draw means 0 points. What exactly would it have an impact on a tournament ? Players would actual play it out and not ID ; it will remove the draw-bracket (especially important in bigger tournaments) , and it will indeed increase the "range" of players into the top 8, for the reason alone, that 2 players that are undefeated still have to battle it out before the top 8, one of them will lose and another player will be in the top 8 instead ; gives us more versatality.
And to make it perfectly clear, just because you ID into the top 8 of an tournament or to get the prices in your FNM, its not a matter of "like it" its just that you want that guaranteed boost in monetary gain ; it would be silly to refuse a 100% good thing (while you still can, it just doesnt make much sence as that 1 point makes it just *pointless*).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
and honestly, if two guys are vying for the 1 and 2 seed, then they are guaranteed a slot in the Top Eight, it doesn't matter who wins at that point, it just matters for the seed in the top eight, which the loser might still get the 2 seed because, potentially, his ONLY LOSS of the night was to the one who went UNDEFEATED, and he had beaten players with good records all night.
Now, if you make draws 0 points, then the "draw bracket" becomes part of the "loser bracket", leading potentially to more draws, and fewer points earned by people, and less and less chances to catch up and actually make top 8.
If I draw round 1, I would get the same amount of points as a loss, even though I did not lose. How is that fair, that I essentially get penalized for honestly trying my best and NOT LOSING?
Intentional Draws affect the Top 8, yes. this is true. But, having Draws=Losses for both players will affect the course of the ENTIRE TOURNAMENT.
"normality is a paved road: it is comfortable to walk, but no flowers grow there."
-Vincent Van Gogh
things I hate:
1. lists.
b. inconsistencies.
V. incorrect math.
2. quotes in signatures
III: irony.
there are two kinds of people in the world: those who can make reasonable conclusions based on conjecture.
I've been pointing out that MtG is a fairly random, high variance game for years. MaRo specifically said that the game is designed to prevent skilled players from being dominant. From my perspective as a competitive player, this is a point against the game. From his point of view as a merchant, this is a desirable outcome (unskilled players have an incentive to try and get lucky, skilled players need to play more games to overcome the variance). I don't agree with him, but I understand MaRo's point. He's not wrong on the facts. We just have different perspectives and priorities.
Here ya go:
http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/woo-brews-modern-pro-tour-and-resto-living-end/
The deal with draws is that it encourages players to "no lose" , and the other way it encourages you to actual "win" the game. If you cant win, you just lost.
If a game goes to time and you WON game 1, and the 2nd game is a draw, you are still the Winner, you WON a game, and your opponent didnt.
If you both won 2 games, its an actual "true" draw, which is indeed different to an ID; but currently both give 1 point regardless, which is a problem.
So indeed as you pointed it out aswell, the actual results matter not enough to represent the actual points you gain.
For example, you could indeed give a player 1 point for a won game and 2 points for 2 won games, which would result in a different structure for the points.
Rather than win (no matter how) = 3 points
We give 1 point for each win, if you win 2 games, you win the match, but in the end, winning the match does matter less if you can beat all your opponents in 1 game and lose the 2nd, you would still have points, not 0 ; which might be a better way to look at the results.
Current structure just wants you to either win, or not lose ; the results matter not much, unless in direct comparision (OpScore , OpMatchWin etc. pp.) ; which is also not really in the hands of the player, as pairings are random.
Well in a draft with 8 persons for example it is absolute possible that the 1&2 player will be 1st and 3rd after they actual play it out, rather than ID, which "guarantees" both to be 1&2, due to the 1 point. So thats what i wanted to point it, if an ID happens, the last round changes nothing about the results for place 1&2, while 0 point draw actual does matter, depending on the outcome.
Thats not true.
The persons in a big tournament that actual "draw" are either slow-players, either have a deck that is prone to a draw (as its slow and grindy) OR they just had a bad game that didnt finish.
So if you simply put them in the loser bracket, they are mixed with fresh players, no problem here, no more draws.
The draw-bracket however, actual increases the changes that the players will draw again. In legacy the exmaple for this is Landstill Controll decks. They really tend to get draws, especially in a Mirror, so the draw-bracket will increase the chance by A LOT to get another mirror.
For like 200 players and 8 land-still decks, the chance that they will play againts each other in a draw-bracket is huge ; thats why it was a legimate strategy to concede instead of getting the "draw" to avoid that exact situation. Especially in legacy its quite unusual to get in time, unless a player is simply slow or plays a deck prone to wasting time (like Counterbalance + Top eats tons of time, and grindy matchups of topdecks can eat tons of time, like a mirror of punishing fire and such stuff). So if players know a draw = 0 points, it will encourage you to play faster, and if it does not, it would change pretty much nothing anyway ; but for some it does and we just dont have the draw-bracket at all, so any problem with that, doesnt exist.
Yes, you didnt win, you wasted tons of time for everyone going into time, so you dont get any benefits for doing so.
I would not consider it any "skill" to get a draw, either win or lose, a draw is both players didnt win (which is more fair than "both kinda won a little").
A different point system could factor in the won games instead of focus on matches, which would change the tournament structure by quite a margin (its a big impact, as the 1st game matters much more, as right now, the 2nd&3rd games with sideboards matter more).
Thats how it should be. No matter "when" you ID, if you choose to not play, you dont get any benefits for doing so.
The actual impacts it has are not hurting the tournament, it contributes to a faster and streamlined event and as i pointed out, a bigger variety of players in the top 8 (as some X-1 will lose instead of ID, so some X-2 will have a shot for the top 8, which otherwise would not be possible at all).
As for pretty much everyone here its just theoretical, i must say in my playgroups we tested the draw=0 points for quite a time in non-sanctioned formats (private drafts, EDH-tournaments and such) ; and it shows me absolutely that the numbers of actual draws is way smaller and we actual have exactly 0 IDs as theirs simply no benefit at all to ID ; games are played out and it has a good signal to the players that indeed each round is played, nobody skips any match.
Especially in EDH the draw-bracket was a problem, and this completly removes this situations.
In practicle observation i really believe draw=0 points is strictly superior.
A more complex method would be the points for games won, instead of matches, but thats kinda more complicated as it goes deeper.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Never underestimate self interest.
And you do kinda say it to be little FNM players and create an 'us and them' mentality.
Ask any non magic players and 'non high level' players about it and I think you will get the same response what does that say?
There are (at least) three problems with double elimination:
1) Some players want to play all rounds of a Swiss instead of being forced to "drop" after two losses;
2) Double elimination does a terrible job of ranking those teams that are not 1st and 2nd; and
3) There would be no draws allowed from the start (which may not be a bad thing in theory, but is a terrible thing in practice because the events would take forever).
I do think there are some changes to Conditions of Contest that could reduce the incentives to concede or ID:
1) Eliminate draws in the last round of a Swiss, treat it like an elimination round and play all matches out; and
2) No X-1 or X-1-1 player will be paired down to play an X-2 player in the last round, instead give an X-0 player (or all X-O players of there are an odd number) a bye.
I am sure there is a flaw to #2, but there must be some way to arrange last round pairings such that there is seldom, if ever, any benefit to conceding.
If by "longer" you mean a 300 man tournament (ie GP level and above), will take *months* to complete, sure. Even a 30 man tournament will take a week (specifically, 2n-1 or 2n-2, where n is the number of players, so if there are 30 players, you'd have to play 58 to 59 games; assuming you play 1 game an hour, 8 hours a day, that's at least 7+ days playing for ONE tournament at the level of most FNMs)
That's not just "longer". That's flat out impossible.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Why are you only playing one match at a time. If you have a 16 player double elimination tournament? There will be 8 matches being played in both the 1st and 2nd round. Relative to a single elimination tournament, the double elimination tournament will only take 1 or 2 rounds more, and only 2 players will be playing the extra rounds.
If you think this then you have no practical knowledge of how tournaments work at all. It's mind boggling how you've drawn such a poor conclusion.