The idea seems like a combination of college (American) football's Top 25 rankings, professional tennis's (ATP/WTA) rolling weekly rankings, and/or chess's FIDE monthly Elo rating rankings so that Magic: The Gathering can have a player be a "World No. 1". Continuing the analogy, the current MTG #1, Josh Utter-Leyton, would therefore be comparable to the Alabama Crimson Tide as the current #1-ranked college football team, Serbia's Novak Djokovic as the current world no. 1 tennis player, and Norway's Magnus Carlsen as the current world no. 1 chess player).
- Jon Finkel Facts: (follow the link at left to see more Facts, or add more Facts!)
- Chuck Norris counted to infinity twiceβbecause he was trying to count how much damage Jon Finkel deals in an average game.
- Jon Finkel believes in maintaining a healthy, balanced diet. He gets all his fiber from eating Magic cards for breakfast, and all his protein from eating Magic players for lunch.
I'm glad they actually took some of John Butler's ideas and didn't just brush the article off.
To those not inthe know, google "starcitygames how to improve magic" and read John Butler's articles. They're long and rambly but a lot of his ideas are very legitimate.
He constantly mentions ranking the best players in the world as a way to give pro play more legitimacy.
I'm glad they actually took some of John Butler's ideas and didn't just brush the article off.
To those not inthe know, google "starcitygames how to improve magic" and read John Butler's articles. They're long and rambly but a lot of his ideas are very legitimate.
He constantly mentions ranking the best players in the world as a way to give pro play more legitimacy.
You're giving Butler too much credit. He's hardly the only person to suggest this. LOTS of people have suggested this, and it's a really obvious thing to do (so many other competitive games and sports do it) that WotC has just been slow in implementing.
Good move on WotC's part that they finally got around to doing this.
My only complaint is the lack of a whole profile database. The info on how many pro-points each pro-player have would be nice. This might take some while to implement but for now a larger rank (maybe 500~1,000 player rank) would suffice.
PS: great to see Willy is still doing good ! His a pretty cool person.
The idea seems like a combination of college (American) football's Top 25 rankings, professional tennis's (ATP/WTA) rolling weekly rankings, and/or chess's FIDE monthly Elo rating rankings so that Magic: The Gathering can have a player be a "World No. 1". Continuing the analogy, the current MTG #1, Josh Utter-Leyton, would therefore be comparable to the Alabama Crimson Tide as the current #1-ranked college football team, Serbia's Novak Djokovic as the current world no. 1 tennis player, and Norway's Magnus Carlsen as the current world no. 1 chess player).
The difference being that since they're just using pro points if two players are equally good but one attends more events that player will rank higher. That isn't the case with football (fixed number of games) or chess (rating-based). I'm not sure how tennis works.
A list is nice, but just looking at pro points isn't a great way to tell who's actually the best.
The difference being that since they're just using pro points if two players are equally good but one attends more events that player will rank higher. That isn't the case with football (fixed number of games) or chess (rating-based). I'm not sure how tennis works.
You could argue that since player A plays more and wins more he is better since he has consistently been winning where as player B who plays less could theoretically keep just getting lucky wins.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy:
combo elves
Modern:
White Rock (41-24-4 in matches. Beginning 10/14/14. Last updated 1/2/15)
List:
The difference being that since they're just using pro points if two players are equally good but one attends more events that player will rank higher. That isn't the case with football (fixed number of games) or chess (rating-based). I'm not sure how tennis works.
A list is nice, but just looking at pro points isn't a great way to tell who's actually the best.
You could argue that since player A plays more and wins more he is better since he has consistently been winning where as player B who plays less could theoretically keep just getting lucky wins.
I'm not talking about a player who played in just 1 or 2 events and did really well. Of course there needs to be a minimum participation to qualify for the list. But beyond that how much you play shouldn't matter.
The current list does not actually reward consistently winning. A player who does well in 10 events and scrubs out of 10 events will have approximately the same number of points as a player who plays in only 10 events and does well in every one.
The difference being that since they're just using pro points if two players are equally good but one attends more events that player will rank higher. That isn't the case with football (fixed number of games) or chess (rating-based). I'm not sure how tennis works.
A list is nice, but just looking at pro points isn't a great way to tell who's actually the best.
Nearly every ranking system is based on who is winning the most at the time and in the case of some rankings who has played the toughest schedule.
So this ranking system works fine for that, if you see say the NBA teams in a form of power ranking. It doesn't mean the #1 team is the most likely to win the championship it means the #1 team is a very good team that is at the moment looks to be the toughest team to beat. Best is a subjective term and you can never accurately rate who the real #1 player is since they play multiple formats and certain players are much better at one over the other. I mean for an example if Ben Stark is rated #15, he still will probably be the best limited player on earth.
I also think the complaint of those that play in more tournaments have an unfair advantage is ridiculous, nearly every player in the top 25 will be playing in nearly every GP within reasonable distance and definitely every pro tour. The way you talk platinum pro status should also be based on how many tournaments someone has played in, instead of giving more of a chance of someone that goes out of his way to attend every GP, and Pro Tour having a much better chance of getting it.
I think this will add some excitement to the how pro tour because we can see the change in rankings. It also reads like a list of the people I don't want to play against.
This is pretty cool. I think it's about time Magic starts taking steps towards improving the quality and promotion of its Pro Player system. Next step: more and better webcasting!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 2 Judge
Currently playing:
Standard: Superfriends!
Legacy: Nic Fit / Pod
Pauper: Delvar; Tron; Flicker Stuff
Commander: Riku ("Some weird doubple spell thing happened"); Keranos ("I did a Gatherer search for 'random' and 'flip a coin.'"); Superfriends!
So this ranking system works fine for that, if you see say the NBA teams in a form of power ranking. It doesn't mean the #1 team is the most likely to win the championship it means the #1 team is a very good team that is at the moment looks to be the toughest team to beat. Best is a subjective term and you can never accurately rate who the real #1 player is since they play multiple formats and certain players are much better at one over the other. I mean for an example if Ben Stark is rated #15, he still will probably be the best limited player on earth.
This isn't that kind of ranking though. It's basically a running total of the past year, without any extra weight for recent events. If a low-performing team suddenly wins every game for a month, they'll rise to the top of the power rankings. If a new player suddenly wins a bunch of GPs, that won't be enough to get to the top of these rankings. You need quantity of performances, not just quality.
I also think the complaint of those that play in more tournaments have an unfair advantage is ridiculous, nearly every player in the top 25 will be playing in nearly every GP within reasonable distance and definitely every pro tour.
Yes. But the number of GPs within "reasonable distance" varies quite a bit depending on where you live.
The difference being that since they're just using pro points if two players are equally good but one attends more events that player will rank higher. That isn't the case with football (fixed number of games) or chess (rating-based). I'm not sure how tennis works.
A list is nice, but just looking at pro points isn't a great way to tell who's actually the best.
Correct although a rating-based system have it's own issues as well - someone getting a good rating will be tempted to avoid playing more games in order to not risk degrading his rank with losses. I've seen this multiple times in many games with PSR rankings (some team/player gets in the top 1 and then start avoiding playing and with this maintain a good rank position for a long period).
Between the two system I will keep the one with absolute points ranks. A professional should loose positions if his not attending in the events like his competitors.
No rating system is perfect, but I think this is a great move and will definitely create some extra storylines for the live coverage.
I would be curious though whether more sophisticated algorithms were considered, such as taking into account the opponent's win percentage or maybe some other factors.
The rankings will be constantly updated for viewing at http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/events.aspx?x=protour/rankings/top25.
The idea seems like a combination of college (American) football's Top 25 rankings, professional tennis's (ATP/WTA) rolling weekly rankings, and/or chess's FIDE monthly Elo rating rankings so that Magic: The Gathering can have a player be a "World No. 1". Continuing the analogy, the current MTG #1, Josh Utter-Leyton, would therefore be comparable to the Alabama Crimson Tide as the current #1-ranked college football team, Serbia's Novak Djokovic as the current world no. 1 tennis player, and Norway's Magnus Carlsen as the current world no. 1 chess player).
- Jon Finkel believes in maintaining a healthy, balanced diet. He gets all his fiber from eating Magic cards for breakfast, and all his protein from eating Magic players for lunch.
You can find me on MTGO. My username is gereffi.
To those not inthe know, google "starcitygames how to improve magic" and read John Butler's articles. They're long and rambly but a lot of his ideas are very legitimate.
He constantly mentions ranking the best players in the world as a way to give pro play more legitimacy.
You're giving Butler too much credit. He's hardly the only person to suggest this. LOTS of people have suggested this, and it's a really obvious thing to do (so many other competitive games and sports do it) that WotC has just been slow in implementing.
Good move on WotC's part that they finally got around to doing this.
My only complaint is the lack of a whole profile database. The info on how many pro-points each pro-player have would be nice. This might take some while to implement but for now a larger rank (maybe 500~1,000 player rank) would suffice.
PS: great to see Willy is still doing good ! His a pretty cool person.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
The difference being that since they're just using pro points if two players are equally good but one attends more events that player will rank higher. That isn't the case with football (fixed number of games) or chess (rating-based). I'm not sure how tennis works.
A list is nice, but just looking at pro points isn't a great way to tell who's actually the best.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
You could argue that since player A plays more and wins more he is better since he has consistently been winning where as player B who plays less could theoretically keep just getting lucky wins.
Legacy:
combo elves
Modern:
White Rock (41-24-4 in matches. Beginning 10/14/14. Last updated 1/2/15)
List:
4 Dark Confidant
3 Siege Rhino
1 Thrun, The Last Troll
Spells - 20
4 Inquisition of Kozilek
3 Thoughtseize
4 abrupt decay
2 maelstrom pulse
1 slaughter pact
1 path to exile
1 Disfigure
1 damnation
3 lingering souls
NCP - 4
3 Liliana of the Veil
1 Bow of Nylea
4 verdant Catacombs
2 marsh flats
2 windswept heath
2 Swamp
1 Forest
1 Plains
2 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
3 overgrown tomb
1 godless shrine
1 temple garden
1 Treetop Village
2 stirring wildwood
2 Tectonic Edge
4 Leyline of Sanctity
1 Thrun, the last troll
2 Duress
1 Creeping Corrosion
2 Stony Silence
2 Nihil Spellbomb
1 Back to nature
1 Utter End
1 Golgari Charm
Well said.
EDH:
UBGThe MimeoplasmUBG
I'm not talking about a player who played in just 1 or 2 events and did really well. Of course there needs to be a minimum participation to qualify for the list. But beyond that how much you play shouldn't matter.
The current list does not actually reward consistently winning. A player who does well in 10 events and scrubs out of 10 events will have approximately the same number of points as a player who plays in only 10 events and does well in every one.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Nearly every ranking system is based on who is winning the most at the time and in the case of some rankings who has played the toughest schedule.
So this ranking system works fine for that, if you see say the NBA teams in a form of power ranking. It doesn't mean the #1 team is the most likely to win the championship it means the #1 team is a very good team that is at the moment looks to be the toughest team to beat. Best is a subjective term and you can never accurately rate who the real #1 player is since they play multiple formats and certain players are much better at one over the other. I mean for an example if Ben Stark is rated #15, he still will probably be the best limited player on earth.
I also think the complaint of those that play in more tournaments have an unfair advantage is ridiculous, nearly every player in the top 25 will be playing in nearly every GP within reasonable distance and definitely every pro tour. The way you talk platinum pro status should also be based on how many tournaments someone has played in, instead of giving more of a chance of someone that goes out of his way to attend every GP, and Pro Tour having a much better chance of getting it.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
Currently playing:
Standard: Superfriends!
Legacy: Nic Fit / Pod
Pauper: Delvar; Tron; Flicker Stuff
Commander: Riku ("Some weird doubple spell thing happened"); Keranos ("I did a Gatherer search for 'random' and 'flip a coin.'"); Superfriends!
This isn't that kind of ranking though. It's basically a running total of the past year, without any extra weight for recent events. If a low-performing team suddenly wins every game for a month, they'll rise to the top of the power rankings. If a new player suddenly wins a bunch of GPs, that won't be enough to get to the top of these rankings. You need quantity of performances, not just quality.
Yes. But the number of GPs within "reasonable distance" varies quite a bit depending on where you live.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Correct although a rating-based system have it's own issues as well - someone getting a good rating will be tempted to avoid playing more games in order to not risk degrading his rank with losses. I've seen this multiple times in many games with PSR rankings (some team/player gets in the top 1 and then start avoiding playing and with this maintain a good rank position for a long period).
Between the two system I will keep the one with absolute points ranks. A professional should loose positions if his not attending in the events like his competitors.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
I would be curious though whether more sophisticated algorithms were considered, such as taking into account the opponent's win percentage or maybe some other factors.
A comic about the world's most addictive game, Magic: The Gathering.