I don't like it right now, but I probably will get used to it. Yay level 39!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
So this is a system that really only rewards those who play a ton?
Granted, I don't know if ELO was a good system to use for magic, but my friend and I are both rated around 1900 with 40 and 60 events on record respectively and are now pretty low on this scale. We don't really play sanctioned events that much since I'm low on money and he's low on time, and I feel like when it comes to getting GP byes or simply showing off how awesome we are we're getting the short end of the stick.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Type 2: UW U/W Stone-Blade (24-4-1 R.I.P.) UW UW Caw-Blade UW UB U/B Control UB GR Valakut Ramp GR
The effect could prove so discombobulating to combo players, in particularly, they may fizzle and run away screaming. "From that day the Curse of the Plateau was upon me, and I found every hand I ever pull from a combo deck is a mulligan."
Member of Anti-Blue Alliance (Just Say "Yes" to Spells!) Members: 8 known, add to your sig to join!
Avid EDH player GWUPhelddagrif----------------GWRhys, the Redeemed----------UBRLord of Tresserhorn--------XKozilek, Butcher of Truth WUBRGProgenitus---------------BGWKarador, Ghost Chieftain---URGIntet, the Dreamer---------RGWort, the Raidmother BGSavra-----------------------RGMarhault Elsdragon----------UTeferi, Mage of Zhalfir------UWHanna, Ship's Navigator BSkithiryx the Blight Dragon--RWUZedruu the Greathearted----BRelentless Rats------------BRUNicol Bolas
Evan made one misstep in that vid, he assumes you know that when he quits talking about lifetime rating that you know he's talking about competitive rating again for invites et. This is unfortunately where most people are confused because they think that someone like me who has played casually for 15 years is going to get an invite over them when they bust thier hump every week/weekend, and that's just not true.
There is a very lengthy rumor mill thread about this (that likely should have been here).
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 really kinda bummed over this... sorta. I understand the logarithmic jump that happens that pretty much ensure casual FNMer's will never beat anyone who plays competitively. It also allows me to play FNM without particularly caring about my rating... But, the thing is is that because i have a short history (no one was able to recover my dci number from pre-mirrodin), i'm at a disadvantage compared to my DCI rating
My friend and I have DCI ratings that would give us a bye for GPs. Just one. His PWP puts him around a lvl 39, mine? 31. I'd be nixed from the bye, even though my DCI rating would suggest it. His would allow it. I feel mildly miffed, but understand that it just requires me to play more. Play more PTQ's, play more GPT's, play more everything to try to catch up.
It's just curious.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Un autre con brandit le drapeau de la nouvelle économie. Agitant sa criminelle thérapie, l'abruti prophá¨te s'en va guerrir le monde de ses maux ! Mais la misá¨re n'a que faire de cette médecine á dose homeopathétique, Il n'y a d'autre cure que l'ablation du liberal-fascisme qui nous ronge. - Amanda Woodward, Un Autre Con
I'm thinking they're doing this just so people don't get a negative impression with their DCI ratings just by getting poor luck. I've seen/heard people quit the game over losing a bunch of points just for sheer lack of getting the draws they need and getting trounced for it.
And to accomodate how the points work, and that it seems easier to get points in areas with more consistent playgroup sizes, I think they might actually compare your average of increase in points, in comparison to the playgroup sizes of different populations. Thus, a player who plays with a consistent group of 16 and places top 20% might not see as many points as someone who plays in groups of 40 and places only top 25%, but the former person would be considered to have done 'better' overall.
At least, that's how I'm hoping it works, seems only the most logical way. Otherwise, the complaints are valid - people could report endless amts of competitive matches and be considered to have done better than someone who's playing on a regular basis but in a smaller playgroup-size.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Master Biomancer's flavor text should read 'My DNA - I put that ---- in everything'.
It was interesting reading LSV comments about the change. As he mentioned, one problem with the new system is people with high ratings who want to take a break from the game. When they come back, they have a lot of work to do. I think a compromise would be to let those players take a raincheck for a single invite. That way, when they do return to the game, they having a running start at the hurdles they must overcome to get back in the game. The invite gives them a chance to catch up quickly. If instituted, it would help alleviate those drawbacks.
The part I didn't care for was the comments about having to play more. I don't like Pro's sitting on their ratings and hogging invites, byes and what not. It is a little too king of the hill for my taste. I have not problem with players playing a lot of Magic to get benefits. I don't understand why people are complaining about good customers getting perks. If a person spends a lot of money on the game, I see no reason why they shouldn't reap some perks.
Anyway, I think the rating system will prove to be even better in future. As everyone gets acquainted to the new system, I think Wizards will be able to give out a more strategic set of incentives to the appropriate groups. Everyone gets rewarded for playing the game and in ways that most benefit their playstyle.
I have not problem with players playing a lot of Magic to get benefits. I don't understand why people are complaining about good customers getting perks. If a person spends a lot of money on the game, I see no reason why they shouldn't reap some perks.
I have a big problem with this as those perks affect the legitimacy of competitive play. Perks are fine but they should not undermine the competitive scene. Perks like promotional foils or free product are great.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Go Habs Go!
On a trade break. Getting ripped blows...
I have a big problem with this as those perks affect the legitimacy of competitive play. Perks are fine but they should not undermine the competitive scene. Perks like promotional foils or free product are great.
What? They already have perks, but this change forces them to play to get the same perks. Before, you could stick to tournaments that you knew you would succeed in, and you would still get byes and invitations. Now you have to consistently play and place at events to get those same byes and invitations. Basically, would you rather have a guy who only plays one competitive Legacy event each year getting invitations/byes or a guy who made Top 32 at 10 events?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you don't wear your seatbelt, the police will shoot you in the head."
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
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.
...What is the point for people fighting over a bye at a large event?
I might be different, but I don't know, I personally hate getting byes at a tournament, because I come to the tournament to play the game.
I guess it's different on the competitive scene, since it's all about winning (and I'm all for that.) But I'd feel more rewarded to win all my matches than to win all my matches having one bye.
If I hop on a plane and play the GP every weekend I will have a very high rating even if I do pretty poorly. If I play FNM three times a week that will also be great for my rating. If I am very skilled but can't afford to travel or play multiple tournaments a week (for example, because I have a job), my rating will suffer under the new system.
The old system was based on the chess rating system, which is generally considered to be a very good measure of skill. The new system can be bought; it inflates the ratings of those with a lot of disposable income.
If I play FNM three times a week that will also be great for my rating
How do you plan on having three Fridays in one week?
it inflates the ratings of those with a lot of disposable income.
MTG does that by itself. Stop deluding yourself that there's some epic level of skill involvedin competitive MTG. Competitve MTG is 90% finding a T1 decklist online and buying the cards, 5% skill, and 5% random luck
How do you plan on having three Fridays in one week?
MTG does that by itself. Stop deluding yourself that there's some epic level of skill involvedin competitive MTG. Competitve MTG is 90% finding a T1 decklist online and buying the cards, 5% skill, and 5% random luck
This is false in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.
Everyone has access to the lists, so how do the same people keep doing well if not for skill?
It's asinine and delusional to even state something like that, otherwise we'd all be pros.
If I hop on a plane and play the GP every weekend I will have a very high rating even if I do pretty poorly. If I play FNM three times a week that will also be great for my rating. If I am very skilled but can't afford to travel or play multiple tournaments a week (for example, because I have a job), my rating will suffer under the new system.
The math doesn't actually work out like that. If you go to a GP, win 4 games out of 16, you'd get...
If you go to an FNM, win 4 games out of 5, youd get 12 + 3 Participation Points * 3 = 45.
But, that's not a fair comparison. You played 16 rounds in one weekend. You'd get 135 if you played 15 games at an FNM.
Yeah, GP's are going to be rated heavier, it's a K-Value compensation. Your wins at a GP are going to be weighted heavier than FNM, but in the same token, your FNM's will still count for more than they have in the past, and not hurt you in the future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Un autre con brandit le drapeau de la nouvelle économie. Agitant sa criminelle thérapie, l'abruti prophá¨te s'en va guerrir le monde de ses maux ! Mais la misá¨re n'a que faire de cette médecine á dose homeopathétique, Il n'y a d'autre cure que l'ablation du liberal-fascisme qui nous ronge. - Amanda Woodward, Un Autre Con
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx3bp5BE_iw&feature=feedu
Needless to say FNM is going to be awesome!
can't wait for more people to come out!
Standard:
Retired.
Modern:
Blitzhelix! RW
EDH (1v1): I am a jerk! RG
Tiny Leaders (1v1): BURN! R
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Or a basic primer...
Granted, I don't know if ELO was a good system to use for magic, but my friend and I are both rated around 1900 with 40 and 60 events on record respectively and are now pretty low on this scale. We don't really play sanctioned events that much since I'm low on money and he's low on time, and I feel like when it comes to getting GP byes or simply showing off how awesome we are we're getting the short end of the stick.
Type 2:
UW U/W Stone-Blade (24-4-1 R.I.P.) UW
UW Caw-Blade UW
UB U/B Control UB
GR Valakut Ramp GR
BWG
Member of Anti-Blue Alliance (Just Say "Yes" to Spells!) Members: 8 known, add to your sig to join!
http://www.examiner.com/magic-the-gathering-in-boston/wizards-of-the-coast-abolishes-dci-ratings-introduces-planeswalker-points
GWUPhelddagrif----------------GWRhys, the Redeemed----------UBRLord of Tresserhorn--------XKozilek, Butcher of Truth
WUBRGProgenitus---------------BGWKarador, Ghost Chieftain---URGIntet, the Dreamer---------RGWort, the Raidmother
BGSavra-----------------------RGMarhault Elsdragon----------UTeferi, Mage of Zhalfir------UWHanna, Ship's Navigator
BSkithiryx the Blight Dragon--RWUZedruu the Greathearted----BRelentless Rats------------BRUNicol Bolas
There is a very lengthy rumor mill thread about this (that likely should have been here).
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=7264008
My friend and I have DCI ratings that would give us a bye for GPs. Just one. His PWP puts him around a lvl 39, mine? 31. I'd be nixed from the bye, even though my DCI rating would suggest it. His would allow it. I feel mildly miffed, but understand that it just requires me to play more. Play more PTQ's, play more GPT's, play more everything to try to catch up.
It's just curious.
And to accomodate how the points work, and that it seems easier to get points in areas with more consistent playgroup sizes, I think they might actually compare your average of increase in points, in comparison to the playgroup sizes of different populations. Thus, a player who plays with a consistent group of 16 and places top 20% might not see as many points as someone who plays in groups of 40 and places only top 25%, but the former person would be considered to have done 'better' overall.
At least, that's how I'm hoping it works, seems only the most logical way. Otherwise, the complaints are valid - people could report endless amts of competitive matches and be considered to have done better than someone who's playing on a regular basis but in a smaller playgroup-size.
The part I didn't care for was the comments about having to play more. I don't like Pro's sitting on their ratings and hogging invites, byes and what not. It is a little too king of the hill for my taste. I have not problem with players playing a lot of Magic to get benefits. I don't understand why people are complaining about good customers getting perks. If a person spends a lot of money on the game, I see no reason why they shouldn't reap some perks.
Anyway, I think the rating system will prove to be even better in future. As everyone gets acquainted to the new system, I think Wizards will be able to give out a more strategic set of incentives to the appropriate groups. Everyone gets rewarded for playing the game and in ways that most benefit their playstyle.
My two nickels on the subject.
I have a big problem with this as those perks affect the legitimacy of competitive play. Perks are fine but they should not undermine the competitive scene. Perks like promotional foils or free product are great.
On a trade break. Getting ripped blows...
What? They already have perks, but this change forces them to play to get the same perks. Before, you could stick to tournaments that you knew you would succeed in, and you would still get byes and invitations. Now you have to consistently play and place at events to get those same byes and invitations. Basically, would you rather have a guy who only plays one competitive Legacy event each year getting invitations/byes or a guy who made Top 32 at 10 events?
- To my youngest sister when she was 6.
I might be different, but I don't know, I personally hate getting byes at a tournament, because I come to the tournament to play the game.
I guess it's different on the competitive scene, since it's all about winning (and I'm all for that.) But I'd feel more rewarded to win all my matches than to win all my matches having one bye.
-Necroticah
The old system was based on the chess rating system, which is generally considered to be a very good measure of skill. The new system can be bought; it inflates the ratings of those with a lot of disposable income.
How do you plan on having three Fridays in one week?
MTG does that by itself. Stop deluding yourself that there's some epic level of skill involvedin competitive MTG. Competitve MTG is 90% finding a T1 decklist online and buying the cards, 5% skill, and 5% random luck
This is false in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.
Everyone has access to the lists, so how do the same people keep doing well if not for skill?
It's asinine and delusional to even state something like that, otherwise we'd all be pros.
It's about winning. I'd rather have 100% chance to win one (or two) games, than a 70% chance to win one game.
The math doesn't actually work out like that. If you go to a GP, win 4 games out of 16, you'd get...
4*3 (wins), 12 + 7 participation points * 8 (multiplier) = 152.
If you go to an FNM, win 4 games out of 5, youd get 12 + 3 Participation Points * 3 = 45.
But, that's not a fair comparison. You played 16 rounds in one weekend. You'd get 135 if you played 15 games at an FNM.
Yeah, GP's are going to be rated heavier, it's a K-Value compensation. Your wins at a GP are going to be weighted heavier than FNM, but in the same token, your FNM's will still count for more than they have in the past, and not hurt you in the future.