3 Win a Match => 3 points 0 Lose a Match => 0 points 1 Draw a Match => 1 point
Its a Swiss System we know for years, and the idea came from that drawing a game is allready a sign that you could stand against your opponent.
However, a major problem of this little point is that it is really unfair in the end, as it carries a lot more than "its just 1 point".
An example you might know for sure:
You and your friends 8 friends play a 3 rounds FNM.
Two are 2-0 and play against each other, the others are 0-2 or 1-1.
What do they do ?
Ofcourse they "intentional" draw the final, as this means they are for sure both 1&2 , as it doesnt make a real big difference anyway, both 1&2 get an FNM card for sure (thats how most stores handel it) and they get more prices in the end , as they risk not to get trumped by someone that is 1-1 and wins the game, as this little 1 point kicks them ahead.
Ofcourse everyone dislikes this "intentional" draw, and while a major part might not do it, as they "know" its not fair, its just logical that it is encouraged by the system to do it.
A lot worser it gets if you play something bigger.
Examples are PTQ in which you want to get in the Top8.
Say we have 7 rounds PTQ and you just need to win 5 games, than draw 2 times in a row and your 5-0-2 result might be enough to reach the Top8.
This means that you actual play just 5 games, while you normally "should" play 7.
The players with a lose at the first round have a major disadvantage compared to someone that gets a lose with 4 wins, not just because the Opponents Score is better anyway, but because of the possibility to abuse the "intentional Draw" option.
A fair system would mean that someone with 5-0 should have an equal chance to get in the Top 8 as someone that is 3-2 , as both can win 2 in a row and lose 2, which means they could end both with 5-2 , and just because the Draw gives 1 point, the first guy is on the advantage, and a lot of players drop out of tournament because they have no chance to reach the Top 8 anymore.
As its worst it gets when a "Pro" starts with 3 Byes, than wins 4 games, and draw the rest 3 games to reach the Top8, which means they actual got the same result with 4-0 as someone that must get to 10-0 , which is just totally stupid, and it makes the so called "Pros" look just like abusers of the system (ofcourse they would never miss a chance to do that, but the system should not allow it if its that simpel as this singel point for intentional draw).
The point of this topic is to make a tournament more "fair" for everyone, and encourage players to "play" not intentional draw and abuse the system.
Another big problem point of this "1 point" comes if you look at it with the eyes of a judge.
Ofcourse you know that peops ask for time, they get the answer "5 minutes" , and they start to slow down. Ofcourse not "that much" that a judge would call it an "Slow Play" , but they actual intend to get in the Time Out, to get this "1 point" , but the real goal in Magic is "winning" the game, not abusing the system, abuse the game as it is if you want to, but don't abuse the rulez, the system or anything else (major parts of players do that anyway, but at tournaments its just that doing the "wrong thing" is encouraged by the system, and why should that be ?).
Another point of this "draw point" got into our discussion by taking some points from the Legacy players.
At a bunch of tournaments a good amount of "Standstill" players attended the tournament, while just being 4 peops out of around 50 players they "allways" got paired against each other.
You might think "how can that happen?" Just plain unlucky?
No. They started game 1 with a draw, as the opponent slow played, and especially with a slow deck as Standstill that can happen quite easy (especially if the Standstill player itself is a slow player by nature).
This way they had this 1 point, and so got paired against each other, and we all know a Standstill Mirror is going to result in a Draw again (pretty much allways if not someone gets a major edge), so they ended with 2 or more Draws in the tournament, and ofcourse it costed a lot of time if they are allways going in the Time Out while most others finish a lot faster.
So here again, the 1 point just damages the tournament, as it makes the tournament "slower" , more annoying (as it gets just frustrating if the tournament system itself has an impact on your deck choice).
The result:
What would happen if a Draw would give simply 0 points ?
Players are forced to play out Finals in FNM's, which is a very good thing, as the 1-1 peops get a chance to get first aswell, which makes the tournament more enjoyable for everyone and the first round lose a lot less "deadly".
In bigger tournaments the tension to "slow play" is removed, theirs no advantage in doing it, you just lose if you slow play, you have to win in time to get the points, and everyone likes it if the games end in time.
Players in Grand Prix etc. can't simply Intentional Draw into the next day, they have to play, have to win and show that they really are worth the price, making it overall more "skill" that matters.
So theirs really nothing that justifies the Draw Point (ofcourse you are free to make some, but i can tell you they get smashed to the ground by opposing arguments).
I made an email to Aaron Forsythe and Mark L. Gottlieb , so maybe they might think about this "Rulez" point, or at least here the community and what they think about it.
Quite a number of judges stand behind the points stated above and would appreciate a change in the system that makes tournaments and the game we all love more enjoyable for everyone.
I think a major reason a draw is worth 1 point, is that it dissuades cheating. Why would you ever draw if it was the same as losing?
If draws counted as 0 points, then the number of people illegally deciding match outcomes by rolling a die would go up a thousandfold.
Plus, people know that people intentionally draw, so why penalize people for it? It's fair because the undefeated people DESERVE to be better than the 1-1 people, cause the did better against who they played. Plus, I don't think anyone hates intentional draws. I love them, especially when we play for picks and I win
I think a major reason a draw is worth 1 point, is that it dissuades cheating. Why would you ever draw if it was the same as losing?
If draws counted as 0 points, then the number of people illegally deciding match outcomes by rolling a die would go up a thousandfold.
Its not allowed to get a "random outcome" other than playing, the point is that you should "play" at a tournament, not intentional draw and just skip playing at all at that point.
And in the end it encourages you to win, not to get in the time out to earn a point for stalling the game to that point, such a thing should never be rewarded at all.
Every judge i talked to was the opinion that the point rewards slow play, if the point doesnt exist, theirs no reason for slow play at all.
Randomizing the win is the same if it gives you 1 point or not, if someone wants to archive a win (which is 3 points, million times more than 1) via Bribery or what ever, than its "clearly" cheating and you can simply give that player what they disserve, but the point is that you have to play, and nobody will randomize a win if they can win the game.
So the exchange you get is that the complete tournament gets smoother, as peops actual play the game, if they randomize the winner, you clearly have cheating, and nobody with a brain will do that anyway, the reward of doing it is so much less than get a DQ for cheating (and even worser get Banned from DCI).
This means its not really a valid argument at all, as the current system gives you the same if you randomize a winner, you get DQ for it.
Plus, people know that people intentionally draw, so why penalize people for it? It's fair because the undefeated people DESERVE to be better than the 1-1 people, cause the did better against who they played. Plus, I don't think anyone hates intentional draws. I love them, especially when we play for picks and I win
Thats the point of it.
You play 2-0 and draw the final, whats the point in doing that ? The others are cut off prices, theirs nothing that makes you somehow better doing that.
The finals are something that should be played out, not intentional draw.
A good example could be the "Superbowl" or something like that, how stupid would it be if such a important match would simply get "Ey guys, we intentional Draw, go home" , thats just crazy.
If you can't archive a 3-0 to deserve your victory, than you are not really worth your price.
The point about it is that the tradeoff is that peops either play the game, or just sit and abuse the system.
And while you obvisious enjoy the abuse, its not really the correct action, and the rest of your playgroup should actual hate you for it (which they actual do if they see that the 3 games are in fact just 2 games).
If you are a good player, you go for 3-0 , which makes you the winner, thats the point that is important, the system should not encourage the players to intentional draw the final, so you have to ask yourself if that is the idea of a tournament that wants to be "fair".
You'd get more people trying for a random outcome even if the result is the same. Especially in the X-1 bracket where in big events you are basically at a point where its lose and go home (X-1-1s might have a shot in certain situations) and if a draw basically causes both players to lose you'll get more people trying.
Beyond that you'll get more people being fidgety over non-intentional slow players because a draw is 0 points and it can cause a lot of strife for players and judges. And as the round closes you'll get many more players trying to end the games quickly as to not get a draw which could lead to misplays and that messes up tournaments too IMO.
Maybe you should start playing better so you can reap the benefit of these intentional draws that have you so annoyed?
The draw system as it is makes it easier to run a tournament. For small FNMs where breaking out a T8 or T4 isn't feasible, it can be a bit annoying that there is no "finals" match, but trying to figure out which match is really the "finals" in a large swiss event can be difficult as it is.
Without trying to be insulting, it seems like you have never been in a situation where an ID would be beneficial. Unless you've been on both sides of the fence I don't think you can really judge it that well.
Besides, in your 2-0 vs 2-0 example, you do realize that the loser of that match at 2-1 is stil going to have better tiebreakers than any other 2-1, since his only loss is to the only 3-0, right?
i think at the FNM level organizers could offer an additional prize for 1st place. If it something that cannot be split (such as a single promo card) then it may encourage the players to play it out. right now there isn't specific support for this type of thing but i'm sure TOs have extra promos hanging around. and it's possible wizards could be down with this and provide something along with their FNM prize support (old rewards promos or something).
I think about half the people I know would stop going to FNM without prize splitting. Getting first on a regular basis means getting really lucky, but good players can count on hitting top 4 or top 2 often enough to win packs when they have a good night.
If you take that away, you'll get a guy who is a solid player, but only has a couple 2nd places because of either bad match ups or one bad draw in the last match. This person could attend ten events and not win a single pack, when really they're playing quite well.
If magic changed anything about their tourney system, I'd like them to do something about 0-2 drops. To me, those are the people who really don't want to play magic. They don't want to hurt their DCI ratings, so they leave an event if they're losing. It'd be nice to find some way to either punish players who 0-2 drop or reward players who don't.
I often find myself losing the first round at FNM (i'll admit it) and deciding to play. I almost always get a friggin bye because some other 0-2'er dropped. I come to play magic, there is nothing worse than losing and then sitting around for an hour watching other people play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
Besides, in your 2-0 vs 2-0 example, you do realize that the loser of that match at 2-1 is stil going to have better tiebreakers than any other 2-1, since his only loss is to the only 3-0, right?
This is not always the case, as was proven to us recently at a ZEN release event. I went 3-1, playing and beating all other 3-1's with my only loss to the 4-0 in the 2nd round. Mind you, i ended up playing a 2-0 2nd round, but tiebreakers clearly names myself in 2nd. While this is rare, it can happen if all matches are played out. I had no shot at 2nd if the 3-0 and other 2-1 split. (the other 2-1s had both lost to the 3-0, and we played in the last round)
Regardless, when the system is being actively gamed, it might be time to shake up the system, at least at the professional level. Local stores can simply stack the payout based on record instead of standings if they dislike their playerbase gaming the system. A certain tournament group did this at the Pre-releases they held, before they were widespread at most stores like today, and simply had a tier system for payouts. The payout for 1st and 2nd was consiterable. More than x ties over x times 2 rounds got no payout, and so on. A local FNM puts a heavy topload on their payout to intice people to play it out, and they almost always do.
Just because it secures you anything doesn't make it right.
If magic changed anything about their tourney system, I'd like them to do something about 0-2 drops. To me, those are the people who really don't want to play magic. They don't want to hurt their DCI ratings, so they leave an event if they're losing. It'd be nice to find some way to either punish players who 0-2 drop or reward players who don't.
I often find myself losing the first round at FNM (i'll admit it) and deciding to play. I almost always get a friggin bye because some other 0-2'er dropped. I come to play magic, there is nothing worse than losing and then sitting around for an hour watching other people play.
I'm sorry but that is so ignorant of you to say.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure some people 0-2 drop to protect their ratings but most of the time it's probably because they don't want to waste their time playing matches which don't gain them anything.
I 0-2 drop all the time. You now why? Because sometimes I want to do other things then sit at an FNM all night. Like going for dinner or maybe going to a bar with buddies.
Sometimes I want to draft again and sometimes Cubing or playing EDH would be a better way to spend my time. Now my FNM is at my university so I know all the guys there pretty well but I'm sure a lot of other people have the same experiences.
People have lives away from Magic you know.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS: You guys do not speak for the wider Magic community despite what you guys think.
708th at Grand Prix: Toronto 2013
Modern: U/R Delver, RUG Scapeshift, Pod
Standard: Jeskai Tempo
Legacy: Dredge, Burn
Pauper: Mono-U Delver
EDH: Ghave, Token Master
Would a possible solution to give the loser of a 2-1 match a single point as well? I am no tournament mastermind, so i am not sure if this would work. Logically it seems to be the same: 1-1 vs 2-1 means you still won just 1 game and thus just earned 1 point. I just don't know if it would work out in a large tournament scheme...
Another thing about going 0-2 drop is that (though I'm not entirely sure about this) it helps your opponents tiebreakers. If you keep playing and go 0-4 or something the guy that beat you in Round 1 would have worse breakers than another guy who's first round opponent dropped.
Would a possible solution to give the loser of a 2-1 match a single point as well? I am no tournament mastermind, so i am not sure if this would work. Logically it seems to be the same: 1-1 vs 2-1 means you still won just 1 game and thus just earned 1 point. I just don't know if it would work out in a large tournament scheme...
The game wins % is already calculated into the tie breaker. In larger tournaments you'd have people going 6-3 with the same record as people who were 7-2 but got swept in thier 2 losses.
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.
while I understand your frustrations at 3 rd fnm'es about people drawing the final match do not talk about higher level play and drawing as you seem to have 0 idea on drawing there. AKA 3 byes then 3 draws for 7-0-3 wtf? Don't talk about higher level play keep it to your 3 rd fnm rant.
Another thing about going 0-2 drop is that (though I'm not entirely sure about this) it helps your opponents tiebreakers. If you keep playing and go 0-4 or something the guy that beat you in Round 1 would have worse breakers than another guy who's first round opponent dropped.
That is partially true... if you win some, you will instead improve your opp's breakers
Some discussions on points systems and the benefits thereof.
First of all, it is not practicable to remove the option of an intentional draw from the tournament system. Although it is a nice idea in theory, it simply isn't something that you can do in a real-life event.
The current system, which we can call the 301 system, is longstanding, and does have some quirks.
Firstly, as discussed in the starting post, 301 means that getting wins sooner is better than getting them later. A 5-0 player is safely in to Top 8 in a 7-round event, more or less all of the time; depending on the size, they can double ID or even lose and ID and still make it. And playing against top players means their tiebreakers may even give them a good shot if they end up 5-2.
However, a player who starts out 0-2 can almost never Top 8. The worse tiebreakers mean that they may not have a shot- especially when IDs quickly 'lock out' slots for the 5-0s.
This is an inherent element of the 301 tournament system. The question is, what are the consequences? Players are rewarded, perhaps disproportionately, for winning more earlier on than they are for winning later on. However, having a streak at the start of the tournament means you're beating players who are also on streaks (until they meet you!). Your reward for beating these players is twofold- better tiebreakers, and better chances of being able to circumvent the need for them by "drawing in".
However, putting together a 5-win streak from 0-2 is easier. You therefore have worse tiebreakers, but also lose out on the chance to ID.
So in essence is that the draw point gives the 5-0 player an additional advantage over the 5-2 player, other than the tiebreaker advantage (which is the one they are rightly entitled to).
So, let's consider some other options.
Firstly, the Legend of the Five Rings TCG used to use a 310 system- that is, you get a point for losing, and nothing for a draw. This system discourages IDs (as they aren't worth doing), but in exchange puts a heavy incentive in place to manipulate results late in a round. If neither player can finish a match within the time limit, it is disastrous for them to get a 'natural draw'. In a competitive setting, no one is going to scoop simply because they feel that they will 'lose eventually' (which is what the Lot5R system intended to promote; sporting concessions). The system therefore causes some serious tournament integrity issues with bribery, collusion, and random match outcomes. Although of course we judges police such things, we're by no means infallible and making the system set up to encourage something we don't want is not a helpful path.
The above posters suggest a 300 system. In this system, a draw is like both players losing. It is a little less extreme than the 310 system, because now losing or drawing is the same for you. If you can't defeat your opponent, you don't get points.
There is another option- 3(1)0. In this system, you lose a point when you lose, and get nothing for a draw. Here winning is paramount. An ID can be a dangerous call, because if you get paired down, your score can actually go down (as well as your opponent gaining a leg up on you). The problem is that the pair down, already a tough fate, becomes very dangerous and adds a little too much randomness into success.
Essentially, tournament systems are supposed to promote two things:
1) Integrity
2) Validity
I.e., is the tournament held fairly and with the minimum incentive for foul play? And is the tournament an accurate test of player skill? We want the most skilful player to win, not the luckiest or most underhanded.
My personal preference for events is to award prizes based purely on points, not on standings. This means that I offer extra rewards to players who play out to X-0, not just draw. I do have FNM cards decided on position (as we simply don't have enough to do otherwise), but these aren't massively in demand in my area and it's never been an issue.
I do the same with my PTQs, too. The top 8 get prizes based on their points score, and the elimination rounds are played for the flight only. This is intended to reward those that soldier on to the top of the Swiss rounds instead of just ID'ing in, and we do see some extra late-round play at the top tables as a result.
Phew! Hope you enjoyed this brief introduction to tournament theory : )
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!
Intentional drawing is annoying but draws need to have points attached to them. I'm more concerned about the arrogant pricks who ask you to scoop to them, w/o even knowing your record, and don't offer you anything. >.< Oddly enough I've seen an intentional loss before. My bf lost on purpose to someone so they'd have the same record just to see if he'd still win the tournament. He did btw.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure some people 0-2 drop to protect their ratings but most of the time it's probably because they don't want to waste their time playing matches which don't gain them anything.
I 0-2 drop all the time. You now why? Because sometimes I want to do other things then sit at an FNM all night. Like going for dinner or maybe going to a bar with buddies.
Sometimes I want to draft again and sometimes Cubing or playing EDH would be a better way to spend my time. Now my FNM is at my university so I know all the guys there pretty well but I'm sure a lot of other people have the same experiences.
People have lives away from Magic you know.
So you pay money to play in an event, and I'm ignorant because you don't actually want to be at said event?
You basically told me all the problems I stated with 0-2 droppers.
1.) They don't really want to play magic.
2.) They don't want to play unless they're winning.
Maybe the reason you're thinking about where else you could be during a tournament is because you can't fathom playing a game for fun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'll be sad if people don't start calling The Chain Veil "Fleetwood Mac."
So you pay money to play in an event, and I'm ignorant because you don't actually want to be at said event?
Some players play in an event to win prizes. If going 0-2 reduces your chance at prize support to nil then staying in the tournament does nothing for you other than possibly helping/hurting your rating.
At prereleases I'll stay in even if I'm 0-3 because I like playing with the new cards and doing so in a fun and relaxed atmosphere. If I'm at a more competitive event, however, I'll drop if I have no chance at prize support because there's no incentive to me to continue since I'm there to play for the prize support.
Furthermore, 0-2 drops help judges since it's one less player to have to watch and deal with. Running a tournament is not easy so you should be thanking those 0-2 drops for making it easier on the judges to provide you with better support and a better tournament experience.
I don't think the answer is to make draws worth 0 points. For many of the reason's already stated and I really don't think Wizards wants to make any major tourney changes anytime soon. Maybe try it in a different format and experiment first and then go from there.
If you're going to change things, you might as well do a little more overhaul. My suggestions would be to just assign point values based on particular match results.
2-0. Winner gets all 3 points loser gets nothing
2-1. Winner only gets 2 points, losers gets 1 point (for his 1 win).
1-1 Both get 1 point.
I think this is a better system than just dropping any points for a draw. People will still be able to ID this way, but it only protects them from a 0-2 match and simply playing the match ends up better for them since as long as they win 1 game, it's the same as a draw and the chance to get that extra point makes the difference.
So I think this method encourages the most play and avoids non intentional draws getting the whammy.
Like I said though, I don't predict that they'll be changing it anytime soon.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTG Rules Advisor
Join The Steamflogged
Human Rigger Minions committed to
forcing Contraptions in YMTC4,
and Resisting The Tyranny of the
However, a player who starts out 0-2 can almost never Top 8. The worse tiebreakers mean that they may not have a shot- especially when IDs quickly 'lock out' slots for the 5-0s.
This is an inherent element of the 301 tournament system.
That's an inherent element of Swiss/cut to top 8 systems with tiebreakers based on opponent's records, *except* for the formats where losses give out negative points.
Players are rewarded, perhaps disproportionately, for winning more earlier on than they are for winning later on.
That's not true. They're rewarded for winning against stronger opponents. At DMF Austin (WoW minis) I 0-2'd then went on to 5-0 the rest of the event... and ended up 17th, missing even the additional cut to 16 for slightly better prizes. And justifiably. I only played against poor players for the last 5 rounds while the other 5-2s had to play against top players.
Losing early means you don't get the opportunity to play the strong opponents. But you're not really rewarded for winning early. You're punished by a tougher opposition. The tiebreakers serve to compensate for that penalty.
You're all just barking up the wrong tree. The reason why you're out of contention on 0-2 is that Swiss/cut to top 8 is more or less mathematically equivalent to a double elimination tournament, except that it is inferior in most ways (opportunities for bribery/collusion, accuracy of results) except for:
a) being able to allow all players to play max number of games (which is an idiotic move IMO, as it takes away from the pool of potential side-event players)
b) simplicity in setting up brackets for number of players that are not a power of 2
c) possibility of allowing draws
The DCI should just switch to double elimination and be done with it. IMO the complexity added in bracket formations is easily taken care of in software, and the complete elimination of incentives to collusion by eliminating 'the bubble' would be worth it. The only complication is the need for an end of match procedure that always gives out a clear winner, which I'm sure some Control players will find a way to complain about endlessly.
All of you are wasting your time theory crafting....DCI is not going to change their system on your request cause you dont like ID's...They probly arnt going to even read your email...IDs in essence exist in any competition where someone/team gets so far ahead in standings that they dont have to even play to keep their top spot till the end of the season. You see it alot in pro sports once teams lock in play off spots their top players stop playing cause they dont need to...
I will play what wins, not what is convenient. Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters. I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity. Style points do not appear on tournament reports. A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win. I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him. Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
You see it alot in pro sports once teams lock in play off spots their top players stop playing cause they dont need to...
This. Pro sports team get paid for attendance so they're not going to just throw a game when they're locked in for playoffs, but they're doing the next best thing which is to send their second or third stringers in and keeping their top players away from the game so they're not hurt or tired when playoffs come. Plus, with some luck they get a marginal player to make his proofs or learn the ropes a bit and improve his game.
My best story of player 'collusion' is the World Championship of WoW minis. Player A, who was X-0 on the last round, was a shoe-in for top 8. He's playing against Player B, who is also a shoe-in because he got paired up multiple times. Player B's warband has something like a 90/10 matchup in his favor. It's ridiculously in his favor. If Player B wins, both players would end up in top 8 around 3rd-6th place and be in separate brackets and thus Player A misses his worst matchup of the top 8 and can only ever meet it on the finals. If Player A wins, Player A is first and Player B squeaks in at 8th or 7th and is about 50% chance of being the first match of top 8 for Player A, which is almost assuredly an elimination for Player A and an automatic jump to the semi-finals for Player B.
There are no ties in WoW minis. So both players had to talk with judges to figure out who'd concede to whom. Basically it ended up with Player B winning (like he should per the odds) because if both players were to sit in their corners and do *nothing* (the best they could accomplish so their opponent would win) the end of match procedure would give the win to Player B.
3 Win a Match => 3 points
0 Lose a Match => 0 points
1 Draw a Match => 1 point
Its a Swiss System we know for years, and the idea came from that drawing a game is allready a sign that you could stand against your opponent.
However, a major problem of this little point is that it is really unfair in the end, as it carries a lot more than "its just 1 point".
An example you might know for sure:
You and your friends 8 friends play a 3 rounds FNM.
Two are 2-0 and play against each other, the others are 0-2 or 1-1.
What do they do ?
Ofcourse they "intentional" draw the final, as this means they are for sure both 1&2 , as it doesnt make a real big difference anyway, both 1&2 get an FNM card for sure (thats how most stores handel it) and they get more prices in the end , as they risk not to get trumped by someone that is 1-1 and wins the game, as this little 1 point kicks them ahead.
Ofcourse everyone dislikes this "intentional" draw, and while a major part might not do it, as they "know" its not fair, its just logical that it is encouraged by the system to do it.
A lot worser it gets if you play something bigger.
Examples are PTQ in which you want to get in the Top8.
Say we have 7 rounds PTQ and you just need to win 5 games, than draw 2 times in a row and your 5-0-2 result might be enough to reach the Top8.
This means that you actual play just 5 games, while you normally "should" play 7.
The players with a lose at the first round have a major disadvantage compared to someone that gets a lose with 4 wins, not just because the Opponents Score is better anyway, but because of the possibility to abuse the "intentional Draw" option.
A fair system would mean that someone with 5-0 should have an equal chance to get in the Top 8 as someone that is 3-2 , as both can win 2 in a row and lose 2, which means they could end both with 5-2 , and just because the Draw gives 1 point, the first guy is on the advantage, and a lot of players drop out of tournament because they have no chance to reach the Top 8 anymore.
As its worst it gets when a "Pro" starts with 3 Byes, than wins 4 games, and draw the rest 3 games to reach the Top8, which means they actual got the same result with 4-0 as someone that must get to 10-0 , which is just totally stupid, and it makes the so called "Pros" look just like abusers of the system (ofcourse they would never miss a chance to do that, but the system should not allow it if its that simpel as this singel point for intentional draw).
The point of this topic is to make a tournament more "fair" for everyone, and encourage players to "play" not intentional draw and abuse the system.
Another big problem point of this "1 point" comes if you look at it with the eyes of a judge.
Ofcourse you know that peops ask for time, they get the answer "5 minutes" , and they start to slow down. Ofcourse not "that much" that a judge would call it an "Slow Play" , but they actual intend to get in the Time Out, to get this "1 point" , but the real goal in Magic is "winning" the game, not abusing the system, abuse the game as it is if you want to, but don't abuse the rulez, the system or anything else (major parts of players do that anyway, but at tournaments its just that doing the "wrong thing" is encouraged by the system, and why should that be ?).
Another point of this "draw point" got into our discussion by taking some points from the Legacy players.
At a bunch of tournaments a good amount of "Standstill" players attended the tournament, while just being 4 peops out of around 50 players they "allways" got paired against each other.
You might think "how can that happen?" Just plain unlucky?
No. They started game 1 with a draw, as the opponent slow played, and especially with a slow deck as Standstill that can happen quite easy (especially if the Standstill player itself is a slow player by nature).
This way they had this 1 point, and so got paired against each other, and we all know a Standstill Mirror is going to result in a Draw again (pretty much allways if not someone gets a major edge), so they ended with 2 or more Draws in the tournament, and ofcourse it costed a lot of time if they are allways going in the Time Out while most others finish a lot faster.
So here again, the 1 point just damages the tournament, as it makes the tournament "slower" , more annoying (as it gets just frustrating if the tournament system itself has an impact on your deck choice).
The result:
What would happen if a Draw would give simply 0 points ?
Players are forced to play out Finals in FNM's, which is a very good thing, as the 1-1 peops get a chance to get first aswell, which makes the tournament more enjoyable for everyone and the first round lose a lot less "deadly".
In bigger tournaments the tension to "slow play" is removed, theirs no advantage in doing it, you just lose if you slow play, you have to win in time to get the points, and everyone likes it if the games end in time.
Players in Grand Prix etc. can't simply Intentional Draw into the next day, they have to play, have to win and show that they really are worth the price, making it overall more "skill" that matters.
So theirs really nothing that justifies the Draw Point (ofcourse you are free to make some, but i can tell you they get smashed to the ground by opposing arguments).
I made an email to Aaron Forsythe and Mark L. Gottlieb , so maybe they might think about this "Rulez" point, or at least here the community and what they think about it.
Quite a number of judges stand behind the points stated above and would appreciate a change in the system that makes tournaments and the game we all love more enjoyable for everyone.
Happy discussing.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
If draws counted as 0 points, then the number of people illegally deciding match outcomes by rolling a die would go up a thousandfold.
Quotes in blog.
Its not allowed to get a "random outcome" other than playing, the point is that you should "play" at a tournament, not intentional draw and just skip playing at all at that point.
And in the end it encourages you to win, not to get in the time out to earn a point for stalling the game to that point, such a thing should never be rewarded at all.
Every judge i talked to was the opinion that the point rewards slow play, if the point doesnt exist, theirs no reason for slow play at all.
Randomizing the win is the same if it gives you 1 point or not, if someone wants to archive a win (which is 3 points, million times more than 1) via Bribery or what ever, than its "clearly" cheating and you can simply give that player what they disserve, but the point is that you have to play, and nobody will randomize a win if they can win the game.
So the exchange you get is that the complete tournament gets smoother, as peops actual play the game, if they randomize the winner, you clearly have cheating, and nobody with a brain will do that anyway, the reward of doing it is so much less than get a DQ for cheating (and even worser get Banned from DCI).
This means its not really a valid argument at all, as the current system gives you the same if you randomize a winner, you get DQ for it.
Thats the point of it.
You play 2-0 and draw the final, whats the point in doing that ? The others are cut off prices, theirs nothing that makes you somehow better doing that.
The finals are something that should be played out, not intentional draw.
A good example could be the "Superbowl" or something like that, how stupid would it be if such a important match would simply get "Ey guys, we intentional Draw, go home" , thats just crazy.
If you can't archive a 3-0 to deserve your victory, than you are not really worth your price.
The point about it is that the tradeoff is that peops either play the game, or just sit and abuse the system.
And while you obvisious enjoy the abuse, its not really the correct action, and the rest of your playgroup should actual hate you for it (which they actual do if they see that the 3 games are in fact just 2 games).
If you are a good player, you go for 3-0 , which makes you the winner, thats the point that is important, the system should not encourage the players to intentional draw the final, so you have to ask yourself if that is the idea of a tournament that wants to be "fair".
Double-post merged.
-Memnarch
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Beyond that you'll get more people being fidgety over non-intentional slow players because a draw is 0 points and it can cause a lot of strife for players and judges. And as the round closes you'll get many more players trying to end the games quickly as to not get a draw which could lead to misplays and that messes up tournaments too IMO.
The draw system as it is makes it easier to run a tournament. For small FNMs where breaking out a T8 or T4 isn't feasible, it can be a bit annoying that there is no "finals" match, but trying to figure out which match is really the "finals" in a large swiss event can be difficult as it is.
Without trying to be insulting, it seems like you have never been in a situation where an ID would be beneficial. Unless you've been on both sides of the fence I don't think you can really judge it that well.
Besides, in your 2-0 vs 2-0 example, you do realize that the loser of that match at 2-1 is stil going to have better tiebreakers than any other 2-1, since his only loss is to the only 3-0, right?
And how do you suggest stopping them?
If you take that away, you'll get a guy who is a solid player, but only has a couple 2nd places because of either bad match ups or one bad draw in the last match. This person could attend ten events and not win a single pack, when really they're playing quite well.
If magic changed anything about their tourney system, I'd like them to do something about 0-2 drops. To me, those are the people who really don't want to play magic. They don't want to hurt their DCI ratings, so they leave an event if they're losing. It'd be nice to find some way to either punish players who 0-2 drop or reward players who don't.
I often find myself losing the first round at FNM (i'll admit it) and deciding to play. I almost always get a friggin bye because some other 0-2'er dropped. I come to play magic, there is nothing worse than losing and then sitting around for an hour watching other people play.
This is not always the case, as was proven to us recently at a ZEN release event. I went 3-1, playing and beating all other 3-1's with my only loss to the 4-0 in the 2nd round. Mind you, i ended up playing a 2-0 2nd round, but tiebreakers clearly names myself in 2nd. While this is rare, it can happen if all matches are played out. I had no shot at 2nd if the 3-0 and other 2-1 split. (the other 2-1s had both lost to the 3-0, and we played in the last round)
Regardless, when the system is being actively gamed, it might be time to shake up the system, at least at the professional level. Local stores can simply stack the payout based on record instead of standings if they dislike their playerbase gaming the system. A certain tournament group did this at the Pre-releases they held, before they were widespread at most stores like today, and simply had a tier system for payouts. The payout for 1st and 2nd was consiterable. More than x ties over x times 2 rounds got no payout, and so on. A local FNM puts a heavy topload on their payout to intice people to play it out, and they almost always do.
Just because it secures you anything doesn't make it right.
My wife was on MTV with this video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUutIZg2EpU
I'm sorry but that is so ignorant of you to say.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure some people 0-2 drop to protect their ratings but most of the time it's probably because they don't want to waste their time playing matches which don't gain them anything.
I 0-2 drop all the time. You now why? Because sometimes I want to do other things then sit at an FNM all night. Like going for dinner or maybe going to a bar with buddies.
Sometimes I want to draft again and sometimes Cubing or playing EDH would be a better way to spend my time. Now my FNM is at my university so I know all the guys there pretty well but I'm sure a lot of other people have the same experiences.
People have lives away from Magic you know.
708th at Grand Prix: Toronto 2013
Modern: U/R Delver, RUG Scapeshift, Pod
Standard: Jeskai Tempo
Legacy: Dredge, Burn
Pauper: Mono-U Delver
EDH: Ghave, Token Master
The game wins % is already calculated into the tie breaker. In larger tournaments you'd have people going 6-3 with the same record as people who were 7-2 but got swept in thier 2 losses.
That is partially true... if you win some, you will instead improve your opp's breakers
First of all, it is not practicable to remove the option of an intentional draw from the tournament system. Although it is a nice idea in theory, it simply isn't something that you can do in a real-life event.
The current system, which we can call the 301 system, is longstanding, and does have some quirks.
Firstly, as discussed in the starting post, 301 means that getting wins sooner is better than getting them later. A 5-0 player is safely in to Top 8 in a 7-round event, more or less all of the time; depending on the size, they can double ID or even lose and ID and still make it. And playing against top players means their tiebreakers may even give them a good shot if they end up 5-2.
However, a player who starts out 0-2 can almost never Top 8. The worse tiebreakers mean that they may not have a shot- especially when IDs quickly 'lock out' slots for the 5-0s.
This is an inherent element of the 301 tournament system. The question is, what are the consequences? Players are rewarded, perhaps disproportionately, for winning more earlier on than they are for winning later on. However, having a streak at the start of the tournament means you're beating players who are also on streaks (until they meet you!). Your reward for beating these players is twofold- better tiebreakers, and better chances of being able to circumvent the need for them by "drawing in".
However, putting together a 5-win streak from 0-2 is easier. You therefore have worse tiebreakers, but also lose out on the chance to ID.
So in essence is that the draw point gives the 5-0 player an additional advantage over the 5-2 player, other than the tiebreaker advantage (which is the one they are rightly entitled to).
So, let's consider some other options.
Firstly, the Legend of the Five Rings TCG used to use a 310 system- that is, you get a point for losing, and nothing for a draw. This system discourages IDs (as they aren't worth doing), but in exchange puts a heavy incentive in place to manipulate results late in a round. If neither player can finish a match within the time limit, it is disastrous for them to get a 'natural draw'. In a competitive setting, no one is going to scoop simply because they feel that they will 'lose eventually' (which is what the Lot5R system intended to promote; sporting concessions). The system therefore causes some serious tournament integrity issues with bribery, collusion, and random match outcomes. Although of course we judges police such things, we're by no means infallible and making the system set up to encourage something we don't want is not a helpful path.
The above posters suggest a 300 system. In this system, a draw is like both players losing. It is a little less extreme than the 310 system, because now losing or drawing is the same for you. If you can't defeat your opponent, you don't get points.
There is another option- 3(1)0. In this system, you lose a point when you lose, and get nothing for a draw. Here winning is paramount. An ID can be a dangerous call, because if you get paired down, your score can actually go down (as well as your opponent gaining a leg up on you). The problem is that the pair down, already a tough fate, becomes very dangerous and adds a little too much randomness into success.
Essentially, tournament systems are supposed to promote two things:
1) Integrity
2) Validity
I.e., is the tournament held fairly and with the minimum incentive for foul play? And is the tournament an accurate test of player skill? We want the most skilful player to win, not the luckiest or most underhanded.
My personal preference for events is to award prizes based purely on points, not on standings. This means that I offer extra rewards to players who play out to X-0, not just draw. I do have FNM cards decided on position (as we simply don't have enough to do otherwise), but these aren't massively in demand in my area and it's never been an issue.
I do the same with my PTQs, too. The top 8 get prizes based on their points score, and the elimination rounds are played for the flight only. This is intended to reward those that soldier on to the top of the Swiss rounds instead of just ID'ing in, and we do see some extra late-round play at the top tables as a result.
Phew! Hope you enjoyed this brief introduction to tournament theory : )
I run a Tumblr for Magic-related statistics, graphs, and quizzes. Come check it out!
So you pay money to play in an event, and I'm ignorant because you don't actually want to be at said event?
You basically told me all the problems I stated with 0-2 droppers.
1.) They don't really want to play magic.
2.) They don't want to play unless they're winning.
Maybe the reason you're thinking about where else you could be during a tournament is because you can't fathom playing a game for fun.
Some players play in an event to win prizes. If going 0-2 reduces your chance at prize support to nil then staying in the tournament does nothing for you other than possibly helping/hurting your rating.
At prereleases I'll stay in even if I'm 0-3 because I like playing with the new cards and doing so in a fun and relaxed atmosphere. If I'm at a more competitive event, however, I'll drop if I have no chance at prize support because there's no incentive to me to continue since I'm there to play for the prize support.
Furthermore, 0-2 drops help judges since it's one less player to have to watch and deal with. Running a tournament is not easy so you should be thanking those 0-2 drops for making it easier on the judges to provide you with better support and a better tournament experience.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
If you're going to change things, you might as well do a little more overhaul. My suggestions would be to just assign point values based on particular match results.
2-0. Winner gets all 3 points loser gets nothing
2-1. Winner only gets 2 points, losers gets 1 point (for his 1 win).
1-1 Both get 1 point.
I think this is a better system than just dropping any points for a draw. People will still be able to ID this way, but it only protects them from a 0-2 match and simply playing the match ends up better for them since as long as they win 1 game, it's the same as a draw and the chance to get that extra point makes the difference.
So I think this method encourages the most play and avoids non intentional draws getting the whammy.
Like I said though, I don't predict that they'll be changing it anytime soon.
The Steamflogged
Human Rigger Minions committed to
forcing Contraptions in YMTC4,
and Resisting The Tyranny of the
Viva La Assembly!
Quotes:
That's an inherent element of Swiss/cut to top 8 systems with tiebreakers based on opponent's records, *except* for the formats where losses give out negative points.
That's not true. They're rewarded for winning against stronger opponents. At DMF Austin (WoW minis) I 0-2'd then went on to 5-0 the rest of the event... and ended up 17th, missing even the additional cut to 16 for slightly better prizes. And justifiably. I only played against poor players for the last 5 rounds while the other 5-2s had to play against top players.
Losing early means you don't get the opportunity to play the strong opponents. But you're not really rewarded for winning early. You're punished by a tougher opposition. The tiebreakers serve to compensate for that penalty.
You're all just barking up the wrong tree. The reason why you're out of contention on 0-2 is that Swiss/cut to top 8 is more or less mathematically equivalent to a double elimination tournament, except that it is inferior in most ways (opportunities for bribery/collusion, accuracy of results) except for:
a) being able to allow all players to play max number of games (which is an idiotic move IMO, as it takes away from the pool of potential side-event players)
b) simplicity in setting up brackets for number of players that are not a power of 2
c) possibility of allowing draws
The DCI should just switch to double elimination and be done with it. IMO the complexity added in bracket formations is easily taken care of in software, and the complete elimination of incentives to collusion by eliminating 'the bubble' would be worth it. The only complication is the need for an end of match procedure that always gives out a clear winner, which I'm sure some Control players will find a way to complain about endlessly.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Personal preference is nothing, The win is all that matters.
I will netdeck at every opportunity, but I will not let that stifle my creativity.
Style points do not appear on tournament reports.
A good deck with an incompetent pilot is nothing more than a dressed up match win.
I will crush my opponent mercilessly, and expect no less from him.
Victory is its own reward, The prize is just a bonus.
Legacy is dying
This. Pro sports team get paid for attendance so they're not going to just throw a game when they're locked in for playoffs, but they're doing the next best thing which is to send their second or third stringers in and keeping their top players away from the game so they're not hurt or tired when playoffs come. Plus, with some luck they get a marginal player to make his proofs or learn the ropes a bit and improve his game.
My best story of player 'collusion' is the World Championship of WoW minis. Player A, who was X-0 on the last round, was a shoe-in for top 8. He's playing against Player B, who is also a shoe-in because he got paired up multiple times. Player B's warband has something like a 90/10 matchup in his favor. It's ridiculously in his favor. If Player B wins, both players would end up in top 8 around 3rd-6th place and be in separate brackets and thus Player A misses his worst matchup of the top 8 and can only ever meet it on the finals. If Player A wins, Player A is first and Player B squeaks in at 8th or 7th and is about 50% chance of being the first match of top 8 for Player A, which is almost assuredly an elimination for Player A and an automatic jump to the semi-finals for Player B.
There are no ties in WoW minis. So both players had to talk with judges to figure out who'd concede to whom. Basically it ended up with Player B winning (like he should per the odds) because if both players were to sit in their corners and do *nothing* (the best they could accomplish so their opponent would win) the end of match procedure would give the win to Player B.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)