Perhaps they should just use a system similar to that for GP Day 2 cuts: you're eliminated from contention for top8 when you get more than 2 losses (with draw=2/3 of a loss).
Very nice change. Now, the seeding will actually be relevant, and people will actually play the last rounds for real now. Well played Wiz!!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing:
Legacy:
:symw::symb::symg::symu::symr:Dredge
:symu::symb: ANT
The Gate
Modern:
:symu::symr: Past in flames Storm
EDH:
:symr::symw::symb: Kaalia of the Vast
Why is it assumed that IDing is impossible to stop directly? I've not played in anything close to a high-level tournament, but if two people sit down at for one of the final rounds, say a couple of words to each other, shake and submit a result sheet less than a minute into the round without ever touching their decks, that ought to be pretty easy to spot, no?
Why is it assumed that IDing is impossible to stop directly? I've not played in anything close to a high-level tournament, but if two people sit down at for one of the final rounds, say a couple of words to each other, shake and submit a result sheet less than a minute into the round without ever touching their decks, that ought to be pretty easy to spot, no?
Right. Now how about if they just both draw/play cards and never attack until time limit expires?
I don't understand this rule... Why would the person already doing BETTER get the clear advantage of choosing whether to play or draw? Shouldn't the person who is doing WORSE get the choice? That seems closer to fair play to me. Especially since we already have a rule like it with the same spirit (the loser of the previous round chooses whether to play or draw in the current round).
I don't understand this rule... Why would the person already doing BETTER get the clear advantage of choosing whether to play or draw? Shouldn't the person who is doing WORSE get the choice? That seems closer to fair play to me. Especially since we already have a rule like it with the same spirit (the loser of the previous round chooses whether to play or draw in the current round).
The problem with incentivizing the loser is that it perverts players' objectives. Towards the final rounds you'll see guaranteed T8ers play to lose so they fall at the bottom of the T8, which is just wrong. In addition, when a T8er is paired with a non-T8er, the T8er can simply concede to let his opponent T8, which defeats WotC's (assumed) original purpose of wanting to see games played out to their natural conclusion.
I don't understand this rule... Why would the person already doing BETTER get the clear advantage of choosing whether to play or draw? Shouldn't the person who is doing WORSE get the choice? That seems closer to fair play to me. Especially since we already have a rule like it with the same spirit (the loser of the previous round chooses whether to play or draw in the current round).
Two completely different things. You want to reward people for doing their best in the Swiss rounds and you want people to be trying to get 1st place, not trying to get 8th place. It's the same reason why the top teams in the regular season get home field advantage when the playoffs start.
Once the match starts, if player A loses game 1 then they *have* to win game 2 or the match is over. So giving them the advantage for losing makes sense. And it works perfectly because if they do win game 2, then the advantage shifts back to player B for game 3.
Right. Now how about if they just both draw/play cards and never attack until time limit expires?
This. The only way to even begin to police to make sure all games were played correctly would be to have a separate Judge watch EVERY SINGLE GAME. And even then it's VERY easy to throw the game in a convincing way. Just overextend a TINY BIT too much into that sweeper. Block JUST RIGHT so your opponent can blow you out with a trick. Stopping IDs is impossible, even though I'd be on it in a second if it were.
The only way to fight IDs (and they are a bad thing, a Magic tournament is for playing Magic, not durdling with a result slip) is to provide incentive for not doing so (like this), or reduce the amount of points awarded for a Draw (controversial).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official DCI Rules Advisor
Level 1 Judge
[box][box][size=3][b]CARDNAME[/b][/size] [float=right][mana]MANACOST[/mana][/float][/box]
[box][b]TYPE โ SUBTYPE [float=right][color="RARITYCOLOUR"]{RARITY}[/color][/b][/float][/box][box]RULES TEXT
[i]FLAVOUR TEXT[/i][/box][float=right][box=50][b][SIZE="3"]P/T[/SIZE][/b][/box][/float][/box]
It's an attempt to discourage Intentional Draws, which is a great thing.
Of course, they could/should just discourage them by making draws worth 0 points, but for some reason that never happens.
Because some games genuinely end in draws. "You don't get any points for playing because neither of you won. That'll show you." Forcing players to concede to gain any points is more idiotic than intentional draws. Either you gain nothing, or you're both called for stalling because neither wants to concede, but neither of wants 0 points.
Everyone knows that good luck and good game are such insincere terms that any man who does not connect his right hook with the offender's jaw on the very utterance of such a phrase is no man I would consider as such.
This. The only way to even begin to police to make sure all games were played correctly would be to have a separate Judge watch EVERY SINGLE GAME. And even then it's VERY easy to throw the game in a convincing way. Just overextend a TINY BIT too much into that sweeper. Block JUST RIGHT so your opponent can blow you out with a trick. Stopping IDs is impossible, even though I'd be on it in a second if it were.
The only way to fight IDs (and they are a bad thing, a Magic tournament is for playing Magic, not durdling with a result slip) is to provide incentive for not doing so (like this), or reduce the amount of points awarded for a Draw (controversial).
Or to allow players to report an ID offer. It's not hard to say "Intentional draws are cheating" in the rules. It's not really any harder to enforce than any other form of cheating -- that is to say, it's incredibly difficult to enforce, and relies on player enforcement.
But, make it illegal to ID and all the sudden you start having people reporting their opponent for offering an ID, and it becomes idiotic to offer such a thing. It becomes the same as conceding, only you knock yourself out of 9-16 prizes as well.
This. The only way to even begin to police to make sure all games were played correctly would be to have a separate Judge watch EVERY SINGLE GAME. And even then it's VERY easy to throw the game in a convincing way. Just overextend a TINY BIT too much into that sweeper. Block JUST RIGHT so your opponent can blow you out with a trick. Stopping IDs is impossible, even though I'd be on it in a second if it were.
The only way to fight IDs (and they are a bad thing, a Magic tournament is for playing Magic, not durdling with a result slip) is to provide incentive for not doing so (like this), or reduce the amount of points awarded for a Draw (controversial).
Policing Concessions and IDs sure is hard.
- every single game
Put in this in assumption too: That the REST of the field also would care about it if two players decide to pin 3 points on one of them.
Concede round1 ? Noone would care........and so on.
When you do the math you will end up with very few matches that are police-worthy.
- throw the game
I just want to point out this: Things become alot harder when Sheldon Menery breaths down your neck. This arguement is more real than people realize, I think.
IDing isnt the same as conceding:
While I absolutely do see that both touch on the same principle I want to point out two aspects in both:
- participation: this is equally real for both.
- fair: this is a hard discussion point. I would personally be ok with two players IDing if that sends both to top8, as long as NONE of them also would get to top8 with a loss (because then that player absolutely should be forced to play it out). Point-standings before last round decides this, it has to be math-proof before deciding to allow them to ID. The Horror thing about concession is that what one player has worked up he can spread out again as he himself wish - this one alone is a fundametal break with both aspects.
Regarding the discussion about which deck/opponent I can position myself for to face in quarter-finals(with match-up in mind): Yes its real, but sooooo marginal and small-sized that it should not be weighted at all when discussing IDs and Concessions.
Conceding (in whatever round) or IDing when you are already inside top8(but opponent not)(or IDing when you are out and opponent only needs a draw, but dont think this can be paired?) has emotion (I like that guy better than this guy) and high bribe-potential/crossover-tournaments-incentives attached to it. Thats why those two should be disallowed.
Regarding the original topic in this thread:
I see this as a strictly positive thing, but only touches on the situation where a player inside top8 plays against someone who either need 1 or 3 points to get there. In those situations this new thing will incentivize the first to play it out (however it is unreasonable to believe that this new incentive will override any crossover-tournaments-incentive(collusion) two "friends" might have in common should they be paired). As long as the rest of the rules are as they are today no player will ever want to gamble the existence of his top8spot for a Play in Game1 in top8 match1. (It also incentivizes two players high on the standings, both ready for top8, to play it out, looser probably gets to not play first. So, no coffee/dinner break for them (another hopeless arguement Ive seen from those defending "freedom of concession").
Slightly mess this post perhaps, (not much time) but hope I make myself somewhat clear =).
Or to allow players to report an ID offer. It's not hard to say "Intentional draws are cheating" in the rules. It's not really any harder to enforce than any other form of cheating -- that is to say, it's incredibly difficult to enforce, and relies on player enforcement.
But, make it illegal to ID and all the sudden you start having people reporting their opponent for offering an ID, and it becomes idiotic to offer such a thing. It becomes the same as conceding, only you knock yourself out of 9-16 prizes as well.
That is still not going to stop ridiculous "fake" matches from happening. It's not difficult to think of a way that I could let my opponent know I would like to draw without ever actually offering it. If he would also like to draw, then now we both get to play a "fake" match of Magic where neither of us is trying to win, and that goes to time so that we can draw the game. Having IDs in the game is better than seeing that.
Another thing to help the people who are higher in rank gain more advantages? First there was the rarepick at the end of the events, now there's this? Good luck explaining a newbie why all his shiny cards are being taken away by a guy who will just go "meh" and ditch them in a box never to be seen again.
If I wasn't already sick of magic for other reasons, this might have helped turning me away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[I was permabanned and all I got to show for it was .... well, nothing.]
Another thing to help the people who are higher in rank gain more advantages? First there was the rarepick at the end of the events, now there's this? Good luck explaining a newbie why all his shiny cards are being taken away by a guy who will just go "meh" and ditch them in a box never to be seen again.
If I wasn't already sick of magic for other reasons, this might have helped turning me away.
What are you talking about? The rarepicking / redrafting of rares is not and has never been an official policy of any official tournament. If a playgroup near you does that then that is something to discuss with that group, but it's not Magic and it's not Wizards that are sponsoring, endorsing, or enforcing that.
Also, higher in "rank" is not really an appropriate consideration here - it's an advantage for whoever is doing better on that day, at that tournament. If a newbie is at a tournament, then how hard is it to explain that winning more is better than winning less?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI L3 Judge; Regional Coordinator, British Isles & South Africa
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
What are you talking about? The rarepicking / redrafting of rares is not and has never been an official policy of any official tournament. If a playgroup near you does that then that is something to discuss with that group, but it's not Magic and it's not Wizards that are sponsoring, endorsing, or enforcing that.
Also, higher in "rank" is not really an appropriate consideration here - it's an advantage for whoever is doing better on that day, at that tournament. If a newbie is at a tournament, then how hard is it to explain that winning more is better than winning less?
I thought I was talking about Magic, officer. I thought this was a Magic forum, after all.
So how far will they take this rule? Do we know if they will go to the level of preres? Because then I think my answer would change. A little.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[I was permabanned and all I got to show for it was .... well, nothing.]
That is still not going to stop ridiculous "fake" matches from happening.
Right. Just like rules against stacking your deck don't stop stacking your deck form happening. The excuse that its hard to do is a cop out. There are all kinds of practices that are hard to police that are against the rules.
It's not difficult to think of a way that I could let my opponent know I would like to draw without ever actually offering it.
Refresh my memory (or don't actually I alreayd know the answer), but isn't it illegal to offer compensation for a game win, despite the fact that its not difficult for me to think of a way to let my opponent know I would like to do so without ever actually offering it?
If he would also like to draw, then now we both get to play a "fake" match of Magic where neither of us is trying to win, and that goes to time so that we can draw the game. Having IDs in the game is better than seeing that.
Eh, that's your opinion. It is not mine. I'd rather it be actually against the rules. Anybody willing to *wink* *wink* lets ID, but not really so we don't get in trouble *wink* *wink* in a situation where its against the rules is someone who is willing to cheat. In that situation its no different from stacking your deck. Or any other cheat.
Cheaters exist. We know that. Its incredibly hard to catch most cheats. We know that too. We don't give up and say "oh well, I gues swe have to just allow cheating then".
I thought I was talking about Magic, officer. I thought this was a Magic forum, after all.
So how far will they take this rule? Do we know if they will go to the level of preres? Because then I think my answer would change. A little.
Well, it's a rule that only applies in the Top 8 - so I think we can reasonably expect that prereleases will not be affected as these generally don't have a cut to Top 8.
The most likely span of events that will use this rule in the Top 8 would therefore be PTs, GPs, PTQs, and GPTs, and presumably WMCQs (although the format of those is not yet finalised).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI L3 Judge; Regional Coordinator, British Isles & South Africa
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
I thought I was talking about Magic, officer. I thought this was a Magic forum, after all.
So how far will they take this rule? Do we know if they will go to the level of preres? Because then I think my answer would change. A little.
did you even read the original post? why are you making dumb assumptions and asking us to answer something that we don't know, but isn't likely to happen at all?
That is still not going to stop ridiculous "fake" matches from happening. It's not difficult to think of a way that I could let my opponent know I would like to draw without ever actually offering it. If he would also like to draw, then now we both get to play a "fake" match of Magic where neither of us is trying to win, and that goes to time so that we can draw the game. Having IDs in the game is better than seeing that.
I think that there'd be psychological pressure against IDing once you actually have cards on the table. And there'd be less bad feeling about so-called "dreamcrushing" if the higher ranked player actually won the matchโno one could call them a jerk just because choose not to play to a draw, where it can (incorrectly) feel that way if they refuse to ID. And so what if it's hard to enforce a no-IDing rule 100% of the time? That's true for many (all?) of the existing tournament rules, but that's not a reason they shouldn't exist.
did you even read the original post? why are you making dumb assumptions and asking us to answer something that we don't know, but isn't likely to happen at all?
Sorry, for a moment I thought I was in the rumor mill, where stupid questions are part and parcel...wait, I AM in the rumor mill
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[I was permabanned and all I got to show for it was .... well, nothing.]
And so what if it's hard to enforce a no-IDing rule 100% of the time? That's true for many (all?) of the existing tournament rules, but that's not a reason they shouldn't exist.
I agree that alone it's not a reason why a rule should or should not exist. But I do think that when considering adding a new rule it is something that should be taken into account.
I don't personally like ID's, and I fully support giving players incentive not to ID, but I'm not sure they're so bad that they need to be made against the rules. I guess I just don't see how forcing two players to play a game that neither wants to play, is good for the game of Magic. Even if nothing is said between them and there is no collusion whatsoever, if both know that the optimal outcome between them is a draw, it can warp how they play.
Now if you can persuade one or both that it's actually in their best interest to play instead of draw, as this top-8 change is attempting to do, then that's great, but I don't think I would go beyond that in forcing people to play games out.
I agree that alone it's not a reason why a rule should or should not exist. But I do think that when considering adding a new rule it is something that should be taken into account.
I don't personally like ID's, and I fully support giving players incentive not to ID, but I'm not sure they're so bad that they need to be made against the rules. I guess I just don't see how forcing two players to play a game that neither wants to play, is good for the game of Magic. Even if nothing is said between them and there is no collusion whatsoever, if both know that the optimal outcome between them is a draw, it can warp how they play.
Now if you can persuade one or both that it's actually in their best interest to play instead of draw, as this top-8 change is attempting to do, then that's great, but I don't think I would go beyond that in forcing people to play games out.
This. The main problem with outlawing IDs is that you're forcing people to play matches they may not inherently want to play. Let's consider the three main scenarios in which IDs happen:
Guaranteed top8 vs guaranteed top8 - both players are free to win, lose, or draw as they wish. Taking away the option of ID simply means they have less time for lunch/dinner - or one of them could simply concede because he's hungry. Whatever the case, you're unlikely to see any high level Magic played here. Anyways I don't think people really care what happens here. It may have repercussions on tiebreakers further down the table, but such effects are usually small and difficult to predict.
Guaranteed top8 vs top8 contender - Once again, the g'd t8er is in a no-lose situation. The t8 contender will play to not lose (which is different from playing to win) - there's nothing stopping him from simply playing blockers and passing the turn until someone runs out of cards. On the other side, the t8er could easily throw the match by making 'bad plays', or even outright concede. The potential for bribery/collusion still exists, except its for a concession rather than for an ID.
Top8 contender vs top8 contender - Like above, they will both play to not lose - they can simply cast creatures, pass the turn, and wait for time to run out. It's not slow play, because they're still doing their stuff in a timely manner, but even at a reasonable playing speed the most likely scenario is that they get through two games while being in the third when time is called - a draw.
In all the cases people play differently from how they would in 'normal' Magic - t8ers are free to play more recklessly and take more risks than usual, while t8 contenders play a far more conservative, defensive game.
Which brings me to my next point - policing intentional throws/misplays. While I agree that being hard to catch is not a reason for not making it illegal, there is an important difference between an intentional misplay and, say, stacking your deck. The latter, while difficult to spot, is usually unambiguous when noticed - people don't accidentally stack their decks. (While people can and often do shuffle insufficiently, the mechanics of moving specific cards to the top of your deck are much more complicated.) However, an intentional misplay can be difficult, even impossible to distinguish from a genuine misplay. Even the best players make misjudgments sometimes - Finkel vs Kibler comes to mind as a recent example. By attaching a penalty to deliberate throws, you run a not-insignificant risk of wrongfully punishing people who make honest mistakes.
They should have a bidding system to see who plays/draws.
P1: I bid 1 life
P2: I bid 2 life
P1: I bid 3 life
P2: Ok cool, you start the game and lose 3 life
Players auction life out and the high bid loses that much starting life, and then starts the game. More strategic than rolling a die IMO. Depending on how badly you want to be on the play, you wager more and more life until someone drops out. Can even work for multiplayer.
what is really needed are some cards that will reward you for drawing instead of playing first....and those crappy ones from before like that land and what not dont count
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
Playing:
Legacy:
:symw::symb::symg::symu::symr:Dredge
:symu::symb: ANT
The Gate
Modern:
:symu::symr: Past in flames Storm
EDH:
:symr::symw::symb: Kaalia of the Vast
Right. Now how about if they just both draw/play cards and never attack until time limit expires?
The problem with incentivizing the loser is that it perverts players' objectives. Towards the final rounds you'll see guaranteed T8ers play to lose so they fall at the bottom of the T8, which is just wrong. In addition, when a T8er is paired with a non-T8er, the T8er can simply concede to let his opponent T8, which defeats WotC's (assumed) original purpose of wanting to see games played out to their natural conclusion.
Standard | [under construction]
Two completely different things. You want to reward people for doing their best in the Swiss rounds and you want people to be trying to get 1st place, not trying to get 8th place. It's the same reason why the top teams in the regular season get home field advantage when the playoffs start.
Once the match starts, if player A loses game 1 then they *have* to win game 2 or the match is over. So giving them the advantage for losing makes sense. And it works perfectly because if they do win game 2, then the advantage shifts back to player B for game 3.
This. The only way to even begin to police to make sure all games were played correctly would be to have a separate Judge watch EVERY SINGLE GAME. And even then it's VERY easy to throw the game in a convincing way. Just overextend a TINY BIT too much into that sweeper. Block JUST RIGHT so your opponent can blow you out with a trick. Stopping IDs is impossible, even though I'd be on it in a second if it were.
The only way to fight IDs (and they are a bad thing, a Magic tournament is for playing Magic, not durdling with a result slip) is to provide incentive for not doing so (like this), or reduce the amount of points awarded for a Draw (controversial).
Level 1 Judge
Because some games genuinely end in draws. "You don't get any points for playing because neither of you won. That'll show you." Forcing players to concede to gain any points is more idiotic than intentional draws. Either you gain nothing, or you're both called for stalling because neither wants to concede, but neither of wants 0 points.
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
Or to allow players to report an ID offer. It's not hard to say "Intentional draws are cheating" in the rules. It's not really any harder to enforce than any other form of cheating -- that is to say, it's incredibly difficult to enforce, and relies on player enforcement.
But, make it illegal to ID and all the sudden you start having people reporting their opponent for offering an ID, and it becomes idiotic to offer such a thing. It becomes the same as conceding, only you knock yourself out of 9-16 prizes as well.
- every single game
Put in this in assumption too: That the REST of the field also would care about it if two players decide to pin 3 points on one of them.
Concede round1 ? Noone would care........and so on.
When you do the math you will end up with very few matches that are police-worthy.
- throw the game
I just want to point out this: Things become alot harder when Sheldon Menery breaths down your neck. This arguement is more real than people realize, I think.
IDing isnt the same as conceding:
While I absolutely do see that both touch on the same principle I want to point out two aspects in both:
- participation: this is equally real for both.
- fair: this is a hard discussion point. I would personally be ok with two players IDing if that sends both to top8, as long as NONE of them also would get to top8 with a loss (because then that player absolutely should be forced to play it out). Point-standings before last round decides this, it has to be math-proof before deciding to allow them to ID. The Horror thing about concession is that what one player has worked up he can spread out again as he himself wish - this one alone is a fundametal break with both aspects.
Regarding the discussion about which deck/opponent I can position myself for to face in quarter-finals(with match-up in mind): Yes its real, but sooooo marginal and small-sized that it should not be weighted at all when discussing IDs and Concessions.
Conceding (in whatever round) or IDing when you are already inside top8(but opponent not)(or IDing when you are out and opponent only needs a draw, but dont think this can be paired?) has emotion (I like that guy better than this guy) and high bribe-potential/crossover-tournaments-incentives attached to it. Thats why those two should be disallowed.
Regarding the original topic in this thread:
I see this as a strictly positive thing, but only touches on the situation where a player inside top8 plays against someone who either need 1 or 3 points to get there. In those situations this new thing will incentivize the first to play it out (however it is unreasonable to believe that this new incentive will override any crossover-tournaments-incentive(collusion) two "friends" might have in common should they be paired). As long as the rest of the rules are as they are today no player will ever want to gamble the existence of his top8spot for a Play in Game1 in top8 match1. (It also incentivizes two players high on the standings, both ready for top8, to play it out, looser probably gets to not play first. So, no coffee/dinner break for them (another hopeless arguement Ive seen from those defending "freedom of concession").
Slightly mess this post perhaps, (not much time) but hope I make myself somewhat clear =).
Noah Weil on scouting, an attorney from Seattle with 20 Pro Tour appearances.
That is still not going to stop ridiculous "fake" matches from happening. It's not difficult to think of a way that I could let my opponent know I would like to draw without ever actually offering it. If he would also like to draw, then now we both get to play a "fake" match of Magic where neither of us is trying to win, and that goes to time so that we can draw the game. Having IDs in the game is better than seeing that.
If I wasn't already sick of magic for other reasons, this might have helped turning me away.
What are you talking about? The rarepicking / redrafting of rares is not and has never been an official policy of any official tournament. If a playgroup near you does that then that is something to discuss with that group, but it's not Magic and it's not Wizards that are sponsoring, endorsing, or enforcing that.
Also, higher in "rank" is not really an appropriate consideration here - it's an advantage for whoever is doing better on that day, at that tournament. If a newbie is at a tournament, then how hard is it to explain that winning more is better than winning less?
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
I thought I was talking about Magic, officer. I thought this was a Magic forum, after all.
So how far will they take this rule? Do we know if they will go to the level of preres? Because then I think my answer would change. A little.
Right. Just like rules against stacking your deck don't stop stacking your deck form happening. The excuse that its hard to do is a cop out. There are all kinds of practices that are hard to police that are against the rules.
Refresh my memory (or don't actually I alreayd know the answer), but isn't it illegal to offer compensation for a game win, despite the fact that its not difficult for me to think of a way to let my opponent know I would like to do so without ever actually offering it?
Eh, that's your opinion. It is not mine. I'd rather it be actually against the rules. Anybody willing to *wink* *wink* lets ID, but not really so we don't get in trouble *wink* *wink* in a situation where its against the rules is someone who is willing to cheat. In that situation its no different from stacking your deck. Or any other cheat.
Cheaters exist. We know that. Its incredibly hard to catch most cheats. We know that too. We don't give up and say "oh well, I gues swe have to just allow cheating then".
So why is this different?
Well, it's a rule that only applies in the Top 8 - so I think we can reasonably expect that prereleases will not be affected as these generally don't have a cut to Top 8.
The most likely span of events that will use this rule in the Top 8 would therefore be PTs, GPs, PTQs, and GPTs, and presumably WMCQs (although the format of those is not yet finalised).
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
did you even read the original post? why are you making dumb assumptions and asking us to answer something that we don't know, but isn't likely to happen at all?
I think that there'd be psychological pressure against IDing once you actually have cards on the table. And there'd be less bad feeling about so-called "dreamcrushing" if the higher ranked player actually won the matchโno one could call them a jerk just because choose not to play to a draw, where it can (incorrectly) feel that way if they refuse to ID. And so what if it's hard to enforce a no-IDing rule 100% of the time? That's true for many (all?) of the existing tournament rules, but that's not a reason they shouldn't exist.
Sorry, for a moment I thought I was in the rumor mill, where stupid questions are part and parcel...wait, I AM in the rumor mill
I agree that alone it's not a reason why a rule should or should not exist. But I do think that when considering adding a new rule it is something that should be taken into account.
I don't personally like ID's, and I fully support giving players incentive not to ID, but I'm not sure they're so bad that they need to be made against the rules. I guess I just don't see how forcing two players to play a game that neither wants to play, is good for the game of Magic. Even if nothing is said between them and there is no collusion whatsoever, if both know that the optimal outcome between them is a draw, it can warp how they play.
Now if you can persuade one or both that it's actually in their best interest to play instead of draw, as this top-8 change is attempting to do, then that's great, but I don't think I would go beyond that in forcing people to play games out.
It's the good attitude to have.
I like belgium beer =)
This. The main problem with outlawing IDs is that you're forcing people to play matches they may not inherently want to play. Let's consider the three main scenarios in which IDs happen:
Guaranteed top8 vs guaranteed top8 - both players are free to win, lose, or draw as they wish. Taking away the option of ID simply means they have less time for lunch/dinner - or one of them could simply concede because he's hungry. Whatever the case, you're unlikely to see any high level Magic played here. Anyways I don't think people really care what happens here. It may have repercussions on tiebreakers further down the table, but such effects are usually small and difficult to predict.
Guaranteed top8 vs top8 contender - Once again, the g'd t8er is in a no-lose situation. The t8 contender will play to not lose (which is different from playing to win) - there's nothing stopping him from simply playing blockers and passing the turn until someone runs out of cards. On the other side, the t8er could easily throw the match by making 'bad plays', or even outright concede. The potential for bribery/collusion still exists, except its for a concession rather than for an ID.
Top8 contender vs top8 contender - Like above, they will both play to not lose - they can simply cast creatures, pass the turn, and wait for time to run out. It's not slow play, because they're still doing their stuff in a timely manner, but even at a reasonable playing speed the most likely scenario is that they get through two games while being in the third when time is called - a draw.
In all the cases people play differently from how they would in 'normal' Magic - t8ers are free to play more recklessly and take more risks than usual, while t8 contenders play a far more conservative, defensive game.
Which brings me to my next point - policing intentional throws/misplays. While I agree that being hard to catch is not a reason for not making it illegal, there is an important difference between an intentional misplay and, say, stacking your deck. The latter, while difficult to spot, is usually unambiguous when noticed - people don't accidentally stack their decks. (While people can and often do shuffle insufficiently, the mechanics of moving specific cards to the top of your deck are much more complicated.) However, an intentional misplay can be difficult, even impossible to distinguish from a genuine misplay. Even the best players make misjudgments sometimes - Finkel vs Kibler comes to mind as a recent example. By attaching a penalty to deliberate throws, you run a not-insignificant risk of wrongfully punishing people who make honest mistakes.
Standard | [under construction]
P1: I bid 1 life
P2: I bid 2 life
P1: I bid 3 life
P2: Ok cool, you start the game and lose 3 life
Players auction life out and the high bid loses that much starting life, and then starts the game. More strategic than rolling a die IMO. Depending on how badly you want to be on the play, you wager more and more life until someone drops out. Can even work for multiplayer.