All I wanted to know was which filter (Worldwide or Country) to use for calculating byes for GPs. I even emailed WotC but was told to see their Event Invitation Policy PDF, instead of actually just answering my question.
Magic_The_Gathering_Premier_Event_Invitation_Policy
The difference in my Planeswalker Points is that the Country filter is half of that of my Worldwide filter. Both list my spot out of 20000 total players, thus I cannot tell which filter should be used.
Maybe it's staring me in the face, but I don't see it....anywhere. Can someone please help me?
It's the worldwide filter for the current competitive season you need to use, i.e. need to be in top15000 worldwide to get the bye.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Original quote byTacosnape "All ideas that give me knowledge without any effort involved on my part are good ideas. Chop chop, my dear fellow."
DCI L2 Judge GP:Madrid 2010 45th GP:Amsterdam 2011 74th GP:London 2013 67th Bazaar of Moxen 2013 32nd
Slogged through all 73 pages before posting to ensure that any points I'm addressing haven't been exhausted.
----------
Although their value in the present tense is meaningless in that there are no incentives associated with them, I will nevertheless point out that my Lifetime rankings in PWP put me 26th in Canada while I'm only 804th by my Total rating for Canada. I'm also 24th Worldwide for FNM.
On that basis, I hate the new system. Immensely.
I know how the Planeswalker Points system has given me those distinctions but I most certainly do not deserve them. I'm a good player but I am most certainly not a great one. I resent the implication that I've been anything resembling a top player when I know with certainty that I am not now nor ever have been someone whose ability was sufficient to be considered for such an status. Any system that suggests otherwise is utterly flawed.
For the bulk of the time since I first began playing Magic at DCI tournaments, I worked at a game store. Much of my leisure time was spent playing Magic: most weeks included an FNM draft, another draft, a Block Constructed and a couple of Standard tourneys for years on end. There was one trip to a Nationals Qualifier (back in '97) and a handful of PTQs scattered in there but mostly it was just a lot of local play.
If the PWP system had been in place over that time, would I have qualified for anything? I have no idea. No way to tell if my numbers were "good enough" or if I (or others) would have gamed the system to the point where I'd have been able to receive byes or invites or if others would have been grinding even harder gotten them instead. However, if I did, I can say with certainty that I wouldn't have been "worthy" of any such awards.
----------
For those posting with regard to the number of rounds permitted for an FNM, that information isn't available yet. I know because I've contacted WotC Customer Support on that subject. It's something they neglected to consider when bringing in the PWP system. My first attempt to get an answer, by email, was met with an unresponsive reply stating that they could "take action" if an "excessive number of rounds" were run. Then I called the support line, explained the problem (see next), and was informed that precise values will be determined shortly and put into the MTR.
This is why it's a problem: If a group of players - as those in my area are - want to try to grind into byes, invites, or the FNM Championship, they'd also be happy if they themselves didn't win enough to see their friends go. However, that leaves us in a quandary: If we start getting together and running as many rounds as we can - that the WER will allow - at what point would WotC decide that it was an "excessive number"? It's the old slippery slope argument except we're in the dark/trying to read their minds. Guess too high and our tournament is invalidated. Guess too low and other places that guessed the "right number" gain an advantage over us. It ought to have been resolved before launching the PWP program but at least they've acknowledge the oversight and will be correcting it.
----------
In the second article about PWPs on the Wizards site, they provide a link to what Brian Kibler had to say on the subject. It showed that while WotC might have heard the "noise" of the complaints, they certainly weren't bothering to listen to the specifics or the solutions. He had fully half of the answer to eliminating the act of "sitting on rating" - using the top value that a person's rating hits over a qualifying period. Combine that with another idea that's been floated around in this thread and elsewhere of requiring a minimum amount of activity to be eligible for byes & invites and the DCI Rating system is fine. Remember, everyone is on a level playing field under such a system - the reasons for sitting on a rating are eliminated.
The other alternative which would solve things? Get rid of all incentives associated with ratings. Eliminate those and it doesn't matter how (if?) ratings are calculated. Increase the byes offered through GPTs and invites through PTQs and other qualifying tournaments. Run more of them and/or more per event to make up the difference. While that may be too unpopular to be accepted by the Magic community at large, it would solve the problems being debated. It'd also quash the associated problems of players using methods that range from questionable to illegal to inflate their Ratings/PWPs.
----------
Here's my personal experience with a system that is similar to Planeswalker Points. It's from a skill-gaming site that used to have Victory Points and an associated Level. They were calculated a bit differently - you got one for each opponent in a (cash) game that you won. After enough complaints, they were removed from the site. People thought they meant something and in their defense, it was pretty much the only information of its type available to compare yourself to others. The site was clear that these meant nothing, they weren't an indicator of comparative ability. However, being clear only matters if people bother to read what they wrote. Since they were meaningless, the site deleted them. Not surprisingly, complaints about how people were being matched against one another dropped significantly.
That's the issue here: Planeswalker Points are an ineffective method to determine who should be provided perks. You're rewarding people for swelling the entrants to their tournaments for the express purpose of getting more Participation Points and pressuring other players and Tournament Organizers to run extra rounds or extra tournaments. Yes, you ALSO have to be a good/successful player but ultimately this boils down to a situation where you can't hope to compete unless you also take steps to create an environment where you can at least HOPE to succeed.
a worthy read, considering that it was co-signed by:
I am impressed by the names, sure, but I'm even more impressed by whoever wrote it. I have made a few posts in this thread but even more noise elsewhere in favor of PWPs. That article seems to have cut through the ambiguity that I weighed as positive. I no longer am much of a fan of PWP, given this article is accurate. What a terrible mess Wizards has made of the Pro Tour.
a worthy read, considering that it was co-signed by:
Maybe I'm just a really negative person, but I forsee this having exactly 0% influence. Why? If Wizards does listen to them, they will have to overhaul the entire system again. Apparently, they find it is broken. What if the fix is broken?
That's why I think they won't listen. It's just 5 players. 5 very recognizable players, but what do they make up in the end? Absolutely nothing. Do you think Wizards cares about its name? They care about the money. Wizards and Ha$bro won't lose any sleep over a bunch of players quitting over their tournament system. They didn't when mythics were brought out, they didn't when we lost cards to lands and tokens, they didn't when rewards got a swift kick to the family jewels; they aren't going to when these 5 quit in a huff.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[I was permabanned and all I got to show for it was .... well, nothing.]
How about this for a fix to ELO:
-the winner of a match gains N points, the loser loses N points. Note that N is always the same for both players.
-the amount of points "on the line" (i.e. N) is based on difference in rating; the larger the difference, the fewer points on the line
For example, in ELO a 1900 player can lose a lot by playing a 1600 but can't gain a lot. Conversely, the 1600 player can gain a lot but can't lose a lot. In this new system neither player could gain or lose a lot. You gain/lose the most by playing someone of equal ranking.
I think this would provide incentive for higher ranked players to play in weaker events and the highest rankings would still be held by the strongest players.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If the Vikings were around today, they would probably be amazed at how much glow-in-the-dark stuff we have, and how we take it for granted.
I no longer am much of a fan of PWP, given this article is accurate. What a terrible mess Wizards has made of the Pro Tour.
The letter doesn't say the PWP system is completely broken and can't be fixed. At the end it gives suggestions for ways that it could be made much better mostly involving the scaling back of participation points, the scaling up of points for top finishes, and making it easier to stay on the Pro Tour once you get there.
The idea of PWP itself isn't a bad one, but the implementation could be done much better to reward people more for playing well and a little less for simply playing.
I heard a rumor that players in other countries are having friends in other countries register them for tournaments (i.e. have access to their DCI number) and then immediately drop them just for participation points. I'm sure the DCI will eventually catch this, but it just shows some of the major flaws with the system where rating (and losses) don't matter and participation does.
Why don't they just abolish the Pro tour altogether? Get rid of the Pro Tour, get rid of PTQ's, and just have GP events. No ratings, no auto byes (I always thought that was bogus anyway), no meaningless rankings. Just big events where anyone can join and play and win $$ if they win. You can keep the Hall of Fame as a status symbol.
I guess I just don't get the need to have preferential treatment for anyone. All it does is disocurage people from even trying if they see the system is rigged against them. Any complex rating system is suceptible to abuse and will have unintended consequences dicouraging people from playing. So just do away with it all. Take the money you were spending on Pro Tours and PTQ's and spend it on more GP's in more area's. As it is based on geography you can go years before a big event is anywhere near you, running more GP's in more locations makes high level play more accesible to people.
Look at the World Series of Poker. Previous braclet winners and other professional players don't get free entry, they don't get byes for the early rounds, they don't get extra chips, winning other events gives you no advantage, the pros get no advantange over any joe schmoe who walks in, pays his entrance fee, and sits down and plays. Why does MTG need to be any different? Scotty Nguyen and Phil Ivey have the same chance as losing 10 minutes into day 1 on a suck out to a complete noob as anyone else does. Why should Pro MTG players get free byes and preferntial treatment over anyone else?
Having any system that records performance and then doles out advantages based on those numbers just encourages gaming that system. The authors of that CFB article were right: People respond to incentives. So remove the incentives.
You only get your participation points after the first round you've actually played. At least that's what Aaron told, so if that's not yet implemented it should be real soon =p
Like I said, it was only a rumor I heard, but knowing unscrupulous people, I wouldn't be surprised if it's occurring. People want the easy way.
As someone else noted though, it should be easy to catch.
We'll see. Kind of reminds me of what happened when WoW went to EZMode Daily Quests.
Good Players quit leaving only scrubs and those with 70+ hours a week. Eventually the scrubs quit too when they realize to be at the top they need 70+ hours a week.
If you've ever been booted from a raid for not doing your dailys and grining mats, you know what I'm talking about. We'll raid while you go fund that guild bank and think about your performance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Ok, you don´t take the differences in Poker and magic into account.
poker needs no creative deckbuilders, nobody do develop the format, they need just players who win a number of big tournaments (by a combination of skill and entering a lot of tournaments) to advertise for the game.
A lot of the pros create new fantastic decks, because the devote huge amounts of time to the game, which they can do because they are pros.
Nobody, or at least only a small percentage of the normal players, would invest hundreds or thousands of hours to prepare for this one GP, but for a Pro tour, the pros do it.
Also you don´t take into account that huge amounts of poker players, more than 20 or 30% of the WSOP main event (I don´t know the WSOP or how they call it) are financed by some website or casino or whatever.
A lot o the poker pros, (like or example this one jesus/cowboy guy), receive money for each event they participate, they get the money for the flight, the hotel, the entry fees and so on.
Apart from the Byes, this sounds totally like magic to me
Also byes are needed to fight the randomness of magic (magic is much more random than poker, I think we all agree about that), so that not too many pros would scrub out against noobs who just have a goddraw and or the perfect antideck (choke and karma against the pro with the UB deck).
Byes allow pros to start, when the first shots have been fired, and at least to some degree, the real decks have been seperated from the not so good decks.
Pros would still be incented to innovate and create new decks, because they can they win GP's and win $$ with them
Your sponsership analogy is misapplied. In poker, players have sponsers that finance them. That is completely different than the structure of the tournament itself rewarding past performance. There's nothing stopping SCG or CFB or any gaming company from sponsering a top level pro. We're just removing the systemic advatage rating systems give you. Like I said, no pro recieves any advatange in an actual poker tournamanet over any other player, other that whatever skill he can bring to the table. MTG should be NO differenent. Sponserships are completely fine, changing the rules for certain players is not.
As for variance, it's a GOOD thing. It's evenly applied to all players, luck doesn't know who is a pro and who is a scrub. Insulating pros from variance with free wins is a really ****ty thing to do. Once again, look at poker. It exploded in popularity when a nobody had a great run and won it all. MTG should be the same way, everyone should be able to walk into a high level MTG event and instantly be on an even playing field with everyone else there. Garaunteeing some players byes into later rounds is a REALLY crooked way to to rig the results.. One of the resons I don't play in GP's and PTQ's is just because of that, I know I am walking into the room with up to a three round disadvangtage, through NO fault of my own. Why would I want to do that?
Get rid of the Pro Tour, get rid of bias towards pro players, and let them survive on thier own merits. Make it just like poker: Past accomplishments are meaningless. You are as good as the game you brought with you that day, period. If you want to win, then play to win, don't act like just because you did good in the past, you somehow deserve to win.
Pros would still be incented to innovate and create new decks, because they can they win GP's and win $$ with them
You are off about your sponsership analogy. In poker, players have sponsers that finance them. That is completely different than the structure of the tournament itself rewarding past performance. There's nothing stopping SCG or CFB or any gaming company from sponsering a top level pro. We're just removing the systemic advatage rating systems give you. Like I said, no pro recieves any advatange in an actual poker tournamanet over any other player, other that whatever skill he can bring to the table. MTG should be NO differenent.
As for variance, it's a GOOD thing. It's evenly applied to all players, luck doesn't know who is a pro and who is a scrub. Insulating pros from variance with free wins is a really ****ty thing to do. Once again, look at poker. It exploded in popularity when a nobody had a great run and won it all. MTG should be the same way, everyone should be able to walk into a high level MTG event and instantly be on an even playing field with everyone else there. Garaunteeing some players byes into later rounds is a REALLY crooked way to to rig the results.. One of the resons I don't play in GP's and PTQ's is just because of that, I know I am walking into the room with up to a three round disadvangtage, through NO fault of my own. Why would I want to do that?
Get rid of the Pro Tour, get rid of bias towards pro players, and let them survive on thier own merits.
Any random can earn 3 byes for a GP by winning a Grand Prix Trial. PTQs have no bye system. Your argument is flawed.
Any random can earn 3 byes for a GP by winning a Grand Prix Trial. PTQs have no bye system. Your argument is flawed.
Past performance should have no impact on future events. It discourages particpation in that event. My argument is perfectly sound.
If I mixed up my acronyms, you still understand my point. Get rid of all trials, qualifiers, and all that junk, and just have big open tournaments. Call them "Grand Prix" or whatever. But there would be no stacking of the field, at all.
The more you rig the game, the more you discourage players from playing, they worse it is for the game.
@ Valarin Poker is gambling. MTG's PT is not. The Pro Tour is supposed to be an individual sport. So comparing it to something like The PGA tour in golf or the highest levels of chess is much more reasonable. The PGA tour players once on the tour often stay on the tour based on the performances the year before. New players are allowed on but players like Tiger, Phil and Rory don't have to grind to stay on the tour. Why shouldn't magic be the same way? It works the same way for the highest levels of chess, the best players don't have to grind to get invited or play in the top level tournaments.
Edit b4 post i agree with you about GP byes but not Pro tour/worlds invites.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
@ Valarin Poker is gambling. MTG's PT is not. The Pro Tour is supposed to be an individual sport. So comparing it to something like The PGA tour in golf or the highest levels of chess is much more reasonable. The PGA tour players once on the tour often stay on the tour based on the performances the year before. New players are allowed on but players like Tiger, Phil and Rory don't have to grind to stay on the tour. Why shouldn't magic be the same way? It works the same way for the highest levels of chess, the best players don't have to grind to get invited or play in the top level tournaments.
Edit b4 post i agree with you about GP byes but not Pro tour/worlds invites.
Golf and chess have much less variance than MTG. There is next to no random element in those games. The random element in MTG is a big part of it, just like poker.
But regardless of that, the bigger reaosn to do away with it all is because no matter what system you put in place, it will invariably favor one group of players unfairly. I see nothing wrong with a tournament enviroment where people are soley judged on how good they play that day, not how good they used to play. Anything else is stacking the deck, and is unfair towards new players. Lok at boxing, or baseball, or football, or MMA. NFL teams don't get extra points in the playoffs if they had a good seasin the year before. Boxing and MMA fighers don't get 2-3 free sucker punches if they had a good year. The Dodgers don't get to skip a base if they won the World Series the previous season.
Just get rid of the entire idea of a "pro tour" and rating systems and all that junk. I think it is a net negative to the game. Have more tournamanets in more locaitons that are completely open and let more people play and have everyone start day 1, game 1 on a level playing field. You want to win a tournamanet, earn it in that tournamanet, period. The encourages more people to play in more events without having to grind for points, people don't bother sitting on ratings because the ratings don't get you anything, and more and more players can have the opportunity to play competitve MTG.
You can keep the PWP point system for rankings, since competitive folks LOVE thier rankings, but that's it. But any system that inherently insulates pro players from competition and thus skews the payouts andpossiblity of winning a major tournament is a bad system and needs to go.
@ Valarin
I agree 3 round byes at GPs are unfair.
But when it comes to the pro tour your argument is way off base. Pretty much every professional sport/game gives rewards to it's top players. The best boxers and mma fighters don't get free punches but they are the ones that get title fights, the best football teams don't get extra points in playoff games, but they do homefield advantage and/or first round byes. You are basicly arguing that the NFL should let some dude and 10 of his friends form a football team and demand the right to play as a team in the NFL.
"I have no idea what it's like not to be a straight white male, and the experiences of others are irrelevant." -Conservative Motto
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
You are basicly arguing that the NFL should let some dude and 10 of his friends form a football team and demand the right to play as a team in the NFL.
In theory that sounds cool but the reality is that me and 10 of my scrawny Magic friends would be trampled to death by the 350lbs linebackers. Either that or you'd hear all of us scream like little schoolgirls.
Pros would still be incented to innovate and create new decks, because they can they win GP's and win $$ with them
Your sponsership analogy is misapplied. In poker, players have sponsers that finance them. That is completely different than the structure of the tournament itself rewarding past performance. There's nothing stopping SCG or CFB or any gaming company from sponsering a top level pro. We're just removing the systemic advatage rating systems give you. Like I said, no pro recieves any advatange in an actual poker tournamanet over any other player, other that whatever skill he can bring to the table. MTG should be NO differenent. Sponserships are completely fine, changing the rules for certain players is not.
As for variance, it's a GOOD thing. It's evenly applied to all players, luck doesn't know who is a pro and who is a scrub. Insulating pros from variance with free wins is a really ****ty thing to do. Once again, look at poker. It exploded in popularity when a nobody had a great run and won it all. MTG should be the same way, everyone should be able to walk into a high level MTG event and instantly be on an even playing field with everyone else there. Garaunteeing some players byes into later rounds is a REALLY crooked way to to rig the results.. One of the resons I don't play in GP's and PTQ's is just because of that, I know I am walking into the room with up to a three round disadvangtage, through NO fault of my own. Why would I want to do that?
Get rid of the Pro Tour, get rid of bias towards pro players, and let them survive on thier own merits. Make it just like poker: Past accomplishments are meaningless. You are as good as the game you brought with you that day, period. If you want to win, then play to win, don't act like just because you did good in the past, you somehow deserve to win.
I agree with Valarin, moreover the deckbuilding argument is reversed IMO.
Pros will prefer it if the decks are more "rogue" because they can surprise more people with their unique builds, and that's what make them pros. Back in the day before the internet it was how it worked. It was better I think, now every deck gets posted online in a second for even minor tournaments, the deckbuilding aspect has lost a lot.
I agree with Valarin, moreover the deckbuilding argument is reversed IMO.
Pros will prefer it if the decks are more "rogue" because they can surprise more people with their unique builds, and that's what make them pros. Back in the day before the internet it was how it worked. It was better I think, now every deck gets posted online in a second for even minor tournaments, the deckbuilding aspect has lost a lot.
It's two fold. First WotC encourages obvious tropes rather than just slap cards togeather and find what works. (This frustrates players going to eternal formats because they don't see the synergies).
Second, MTG Theory is very refined to the point that not only are the decks published, but we can sit there during the live coverage and nitpick the list and discuss if the pro made the right meta call.
Its no wonder pros are hush hush with their tech (and for the most part can't be trusted in their articles leading up to the tour).
For a guy who is trying to grind in a PTQ or get points at FNM or SCG Open, this site is great for grabbing that net deck and improving thier game.
Like golf, most people need more actual playtime against real opponents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
I'm not gonna lie, three round byes certainly chap my ass. I show up to a big event, I think I've got the metagame figured out, brew accordingly, but then scrub out in spectacular fashion when my first match up is against some side-strategy that just hoses my deck silly. Then I get stuck in the bottom tables, with all the decks I had expected to lose out quickly; ones I took a significant blow to my matchup percentage because I didn't think I would be facing them. Fun, fun, fun. All the while, Brad Nelson shows up hungover with a deck his teammate just shoved in his hand 5 minutes before registration and takes top 8 because he dodged getting matched up against some random-ass **** for the first three rounds...by not having to play them.
But despite my personal misgivings, I still can understand why Wizards gives out these perks. It's good business sense. They want to have a setup that can generate excitement around Magic, make for brandable stars, and show that putting in a lot to the game pays dividends (BUY MORE CARDBOARD! says Gleemax). The Pro-Tour, and related institutions, does all this, and at a reasonable cost. Sure, I'd love more pure competitions, with no extra advantage given to a privileged few, but this simply is far too expensive for Wizards to do while accomplishing their goals. Three byes to big events makes big-name players want to show up and light up the floor with their star power in a cost effective fashion; they're pretty much guaranteed to not 0-2 drop because Timmy's burn deck wrecked their carefully metagamed Team America list. Given that a lot of big events eat up a weekend in time and hotel and air fare, there's got to be a good reason to show up, a decent expected value.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
mmmmmhmmmmmm
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Magic_The_Gathering_Premier_Event_Invitation_Policy
The difference in my Planeswalker Points is that the Country filter is half of that of my Worldwide filter. Both list my spot out of 20000 total players, thus I cannot tell which filter should be used.
Maybe it's staring me in the face, but I don't see it....anywhere. Can someone please help me?
DCI L2 Judge
GP:Madrid 2010 45th
GP:Amsterdam 2011 74th
GP:London 2013 67th
Bazaar of Moxen 2013 32nd
----------
Although their value in the present tense is meaningless in that there are no incentives associated with them, I will nevertheless point out that my Lifetime rankings in PWP put me 26th in Canada while I'm only 804th by my Total rating for Canada. I'm also 24th Worldwide for FNM.
On that basis, I hate the new system. Immensely.
I know how the Planeswalker Points system has given me those distinctions but I most certainly do not deserve them. I'm a good player but I am most certainly not a great one. I resent the implication that I've been anything resembling a top player when I know with certainty that I am not now nor ever have been someone whose ability was sufficient to be considered for such an status. Any system that suggests otherwise is utterly flawed.
For the bulk of the time since I first began playing Magic at DCI tournaments, I worked at a game store. Much of my leisure time was spent playing Magic: most weeks included an FNM draft, another draft, a Block Constructed and a couple of Standard tourneys for years on end. There was one trip to a Nationals Qualifier (back in '97) and a handful of PTQs scattered in there but mostly it was just a lot of local play.
If the PWP system had been in place over that time, would I have qualified for anything? I have no idea. No way to tell if my numbers were "good enough" or if I (or others) would have gamed the system to the point where I'd have been able to receive byes or invites or if others would have been grinding even harder gotten them instead. However, if I did, I can say with certainty that I wouldn't have been "worthy" of any such awards.
----------
For those posting with regard to the number of rounds permitted for an FNM, that information isn't available yet. I know because I've contacted WotC Customer Support on that subject. It's something they neglected to consider when bringing in the PWP system. My first attempt to get an answer, by email, was met with an unresponsive reply stating that they could "take action" if an "excessive number of rounds" were run. Then I called the support line, explained the problem (see next), and was informed that precise values will be determined shortly and put into the MTR.
This is why it's a problem: If a group of players - as those in my area are - want to try to grind into byes, invites, or the FNM Championship, they'd also be happy if they themselves didn't win enough to see their friends go. However, that leaves us in a quandary: If we start getting together and running as many rounds as we can - that the WER will allow - at what point would WotC decide that it was an "excessive number"? It's the old slippery slope argument except we're in the dark/trying to read their minds. Guess too high and our tournament is invalidated. Guess too low and other places that guessed the "right number" gain an advantage over us. It ought to have been resolved before launching the PWP program but at least they've acknowledge the oversight and will be correcting it.
----------
In the second article about PWPs on the Wizards site, they provide a link to what Brian Kibler had to say on the subject. It showed that while WotC might have heard the "noise" of the complaints, they certainly weren't bothering to listen to the specifics or the solutions. He had fully half of the answer to eliminating the act of "sitting on rating" - using the top value that a person's rating hits over a qualifying period. Combine that with another idea that's been floated around in this thread and elsewhere of requiring a minimum amount of activity to be eligible for byes & invites and the DCI Rating system is fine. Remember, everyone is on a level playing field under such a system - the reasons for sitting on a rating are eliminated.
The other alternative which would solve things? Get rid of all incentives associated with ratings. Eliminate those and it doesn't matter how (if?) ratings are calculated. Increase the byes offered through GPTs and invites through PTQs and other qualifying tournaments. Run more of them and/or more per event to make up the difference. While that may be too unpopular to be accepted by the Magic community at large, it would solve the problems being debated. It'd also quash the associated problems of players using methods that range from questionable to illegal to inflate their Ratings/PWPs.
----------
Here's my personal experience with a system that is similar to Planeswalker Points. It's from a skill-gaming site that used to have Victory Points and an associated Level. They were calculated a bit differently - you got one for each opponent in a (cash) game that you won. After enough complaints, they were removed from the site. People thought they meant something and in their defense, it was pretty much the only information of its type available to compare yourself to others. The site was clear that these meant nothing, they weren't an indicator of comparative ability. However, being clear only matters if people bother to read what they wrote. Since they were meaningless, the site deleted them. Not surprisingly, complaints about how people were being matched against one another dropped significantly.
That's the issue here: Planeswalker Points are an ineffective method to determine who should be provided perks. You're rewarding people for swelling the entrants to their tournaments for the express purpose of getting more Participation Points and pressuring other players and Tournament Organizers to run extra rounds or extra tournaments. Yes, you ALSO have to be a good/successful player but ultimately this boils down to a situation where you can't hope to compete unless you also take steps to create an environment where you can at least HOPE to succeed.
a worthy read, considering that it was co-signed by:
I am impressed by the names, sure, but I'm even more impressed by whoever wrote it. I have made a few posts in this thread but even more noise elsewhere in favor of PWPs. That article seems to have cut through the ambiguity that I weighed as positive. I no longer am much of a fan of PWP, given this article is accurate. What a terrible mess Wizards has made of the Pro Tour.
Maybe I'm just a really negative person, but I forsee this having exactly 0% influence. Why? If Wizards does listen to them, they will have to overhaul the entire system again. Apparently, they find it is broken. What if the fix is broken?
That's why I think they won't listen. It's just 5 players. 5 very recognizable players, but what do they make up in the end? Absolutely nothing. Do you think Wizards cares about its name? They care about the money. Wizards and Ha$bro won't lose any sleep over a bunch of players quitting over their tournament system. They didn't when mythics were brought out, they didn't when we lost cards to lands and tokens, they didn't when rewards got a swift kick to the family jewels; they aren't going to when these 5 quit in a huff.
-the winner of a match gains N points, the loser loses N points. Note that N is always the same for both players.
-the amount of points "on the line" (i.e. N) is based on difference in rating; the larger the difference, the fewer points on the line
For example, in ELO a 1900 player can lose a lot by playing a 1600 but can't gain a lot. Conversely, the 1600 player can gain a lot but can't lose a lot. In this new system neither player could gain or lose a lot. You gain/lose the most by playing someone of equal ranking.
I think this would provide incentive for higher ranked players to play in weaker events and the highest rankings would still be held by the strongest players.
The letter doesn't say the PWP system is completely broken and can't be fixed. At the end it gives suggestions for ways that it could be made much better mostly involving the scaling back of participation points, the scaling up of points for top finishes, and making it easier to stay on the Pro Tour once you get there.
The idea of PWP itself isn't a bad one, but the implementation could be done much better to reward people more for playing well and a little less for simply playing.
My Trade Thread
Current Decks:
Legacy:
GWR Punishing Maverick
UW Miracles
UR Sneak and Show
GWB Enchantress
I guess I just don't get the need to have preferential treatment for anyone. All it does is disocurage people from even trying if they see the system is rigged against them. Any complex rating system is suceptible to abuse and will have unintended consequences dicouraging people from playing. So just do away with it all. Take the money you were spending on Pro Tours and PTQ's and spend it on more GP's in more area's. As it is based on geography you can go years before a big event is anywhere near you, running more GP's in more locations makes high level play more accesible to people.
Look at the World Series of Poker. Previous braclet winners and other professional players don't get free entry, they don't get byes for the early rounds, they don't get extra chips, winning other events gives you no advantage, the pros get no advantange over any joe schmoe who walks in, pays his entrance fee, and sits down and plays. Why does MTG need to be any different? Scotty Nguyen and Phil Ivey have the same chance as losing 10 minutes into day 1 on a suck out to a complete noob as anyone else does. Why should Pro MTG players get free byes and preferntial treatment over anyone else?
Having any system that records performance and then doles out advantages based on those numbers just encourages gaming that system. The authors of that CFB article were right: People respond to incentives. So remove the incentives.
Like I said, it was only a rumor I heard, but knowing unscrupulous people, I wouldn't be surprised if it's occurring. People want the easy way.
As someone else noted though, it should be easy to catch.
My Trade Thread
Current Decks:
Legacy:
GWR Punishing Maverick
UW Miracles
UR Sneak and Show
GWB Enchantress
Good Players quit leaving only scrubs and those with 70+ hours a week. Eventually the scrubs quit too when they realize to be at the top they need 70+ hours a week.
If you've ever been booted from a raid for not doing your dailys and grining mats, you know what I'm talking about. We'll raid while you go fund that guild bank and think about your performance.
Pros would still be incented to innovate and create new decks, because they can they win GP's and win $$ with them
Your sponsership analogy is misapplied. In poker, players have sponsers that finance them. That is completely different than the structure of the tournament itself rewarding past performance. There's nothing stopping SCG or CFB or any gaming company from sponsering a top level pro. We're just removing the systemic advatage rating systems give you. Like I said, no pro recieves any advatange in an actual poker tournamanet over any other player, other that whatever skill he can bring to the table. MTG should be NO differenent. Sponserships are completely fine, changing the rules for certain players is not.
As for variance, it's a GOOD thing. It's evenly applied to all players, luck doesn't know who is a pro and who is a scrub. Insulating pros from variance with free wins is a really ****ty thing to do. Once again, look at poker. It exploded in popularity when a nobody had a great run and won it all. MTG should be the same way, everyone should be able to walk into a high level MTG event and instantly be on an even playing field with everyone else there. Garaunteeing some players byes into later rounds is a REALLY crooked way to to rig the results.. One of the resons I don't play in GP's and PTQ's is just because of that, I know I am walking into the room with up to a three round disadvangtage, through NO fault of my own. Why would I want to do that?
Get rid of the Pro Tour, get rid of bias towards pro players, and let them survive on thier own merits. Make it just like poker: Past accomplishments are meaningless. You are as good as the game you brought with you that day, period. If you want to win, then play to win, don't act like just because you did good in the past, you somehow deserve to win.
Any random can earn 3 byes for a GP by winning a Grand Prix Trial. PTQs have no bye system. Your argument is flawed.
EDH Decks:
RBG Kresh, the Bloodbraided RBG
GW Rhys, the Redeemed GW
Legacy:
RGW Enchantress RGW
Past performance should have no impact on future events. It discourages particpation in that event. My argument is perfectly sound.
If I mixed up my acronyms, you still understand my point. Get rid of all trials, qualifiers, and all that junk, and just have big open tournaments. Call them "Grand Prix" or whatever. But there would be no stacking of the field, at all.
The more you rig the game, the more you discourage players from playing, they worse it is for the game.
Edit b4 post i agree with you about GP byes but not Pro tour/worlds invites.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
Just like me.
Golf and chess have much less variance than MTG. There is next to no random element in those games. The random element in MTG is a big part of it, just like poker.
But regardless of that, the bigger reaosn to do away with it all is because no matter what system you put in place, it will invariably favor one group of players unfairly. I see nothing wrong with a tournament enviroment where people are soley judged on how good they play that day, not how good they used to play. Anything else is stacking the deck, and is unfair towards new players. Lok at boxing, or baseball, or football, or MMA. NFL teams don't get extra points in the playoffs if they had a good seasin the year before. Boxing and MMA fighers don't get 2-3 free sucker punches if they had a good year. The Dodgers don't get to skip a base if they won the World Series the previous season.
Just get rid of the entire idea of a "pro tour" and rating systems and all that junk. I think it is a net negative to the game. Have more tournamanets in more locaitons that are completely open and let more people play and have everyone start day 1, game 1 on a level playing field. You want to win a tournamanet, earn it in that tournamanet, period. The encourages more people to play in more events without having to grind for points, people don't bother sitting on ratings because the ratings don't get you anything, and more and more players can have the opportunity to play competitve MTG.
You can keep the PWP point system for rankings, since competitive folks LOVE thier rankings, but that's it. But any system that inherently insulates pro players from competition and thus skews the payouts andpossiblity of winning a major tournament is a bad system and needs to go.
I agree 3 round byes at GPs are unfair.
But when it comes to the pro tour your argument is way off base. Pretty much every professional sport/game gives rewards to it's top players. The best boxers and mma fighters don't get free punches but they are the ones that get title fights, the best football teams don't get extra points in playoff games, but they do homefield advantage and/or first round byes. You are basicly arguing that the NFL should let some dude and 10 of his friends form a football team and demand the right to play as a team in the NFL.
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
Calling someone a Commie is flaming and must be stopped, but turning the word Conservative into a loaded pejorative and using it over and over again is perfectly acceptable.
In theory that sounds cool but the reality is that me and 10 of my scrawny Magic friends would be trampled to death by the 350lbs linebackers. Either that or you'd hear all of us scream like little schoolgirls.
I agree with Valarin, moreover the deckbuilding argument is reversed IMO.
Pros will prefer it if the decks are more "rogue" because they can surprise more people with their unique builds, and that's what make them pros. Back in the day before the internet it was how it worked. It was better I think, now every deck gets posted online in a second for even minor tournaments, the deckbuilding aspect has lost a lot.
It's two fold. First WotC encourages obvious tropes rather than just slap cards togeather and find what works. (This frustrates players going to eternal formats because they don't see the synergies).
Second, MTG Theory is very refined to the point that not only are the decks published, but we can sit there during the live coverage and nitpick the list and discuss if the pro made the right meta call.
Its no wonder pros are hush hush with their tech (and for the most part can't be trusted in their articles leading up to the tour).
For a guy who is trying to grind in a PTQ or get points at FNM or SCG Open, this site is great for grabbing that net deck and improving thier game.
Like golf, most people need more actual playtime against real opponents.
I'm not gonna lie, three round byes certainly chap my ass. I show up to a big event, I think I've got the metagame figured out, brew accordingly, but then scrub out in spectacular fashion when my first match up is against some side-strategy that just hoses my deck silly. Then I get stuck in the bottom tables, with all the decks I had expected to lose out quickly; ones I took a significant blow to my matchup percentage because I didn't think I would be facing them. Fun, fun, fun. All the while, Brad Nelson shows up hungover with a deck his teammate just shoved in his hand 5 minutes before registration and takes top 8 because he dodged getting matched up against some random-ass **** for the first three rounds...by not having to play them.
But despite my personal misgivings, I still can understand why Wizards gives out these perks. It's good business sense. They want to have a setup that can generate excitement around Magic, make for brandable stars, and show that putting in a lot to the game pays dividends (BUY MORE CARDBOARD! says Gleemax). The Pro-Tour, and related institutions, does all this, and at a reasonable cost. Sure, I'd love more pure competitions, with no extra advantage given to a privileged few, but this simply is far too expensive for Wizards to do while accomplishing their goals. Three byes to big events makes big-name players want to show up and light up the floor with their star power in a cost effective fashion; they're pretty much guaranteed to not 0-2 drop because Timmy's burn deck wrecked their carefully metagamed Team America list. Given that a lot of big events eat up a weekend in time and hotel and air fare, there's got to be a good reason to show up, a decent expected value.