Community

Sweet, I'm a level 31 invoker. Unfortunately that doesn't really mean anything.

I understand the need for a system that encourages semi-pro and pro players to play rather than sit on their ratings. I also understand that you want an achievement system for casual players that rewards showing up rather than winning. The problem with this system is that it tries to do two separate things at the same time.

It's fine to encourage people to play lots of events at the local and casual level and this system does a good job of that. It encourages people to play lots, bring friends, and have a good time. It's perfect for a rewards system. Results aren't comparable between areas or anything, because not all areas have the same density of players, availability of fnms or whatever, but it still incentivizes the all right things at the casual and local level. 

These same qualities make it terrible as a rating system. This system does not measure skill at all. Going 8-2 at a ptq is much harder than going 4-6 twice. If the goal is to find the best in the world and invite them to Pro Tours, it doesn't make any sense to use this kind of metric. 

I'm a regular FNM player for 2 years and spend all my money on magic.  I love the game and like to keep an eye on my rating versus the other local players.  With this new system is becomes impossible for me to get a ranking as high as players who either:

a) Have played for years more than me
b) Play 2 or 3 events each week

So from an FNM level players point of view the ranking system is broken.

If they don't fix this system I don't see the point of playing anymore and will sadly give up the game.

Ok, there are a few really important points that I think a lot of people are missing about this:

1) The old rating system was less indicative of skill than it was of who happened to do well at the latest big event. If someone won a GP or PT, suddenly they were listed as number 1 in the world, and sometimes they were someone nobody had ever heard of! And the K-Values meant that a person who did well at a single PTQ (for argument's sake, say they went 6-2) would gain as many points as a player who went 3-1 at 8 FNMs in a row! Now, even though FNMs are easier tournaments, it is much harder to win 75% of the time over the long haul even at FNM than it is to win 75% of the time at one event (even a PTQ or GP). That is the very definition of variance and it's why statistical analysis requires the largest sample size possible. In VT, the highest ranked players are more likely to be the players that go to the most high value events than the "best" players. Admittedly, there is usually a lot of overlap simply because it is usually the best players that care about going to the high value events in the first place.

2) Wizards is not looking to find or prove who the best player is at any given time. They have said this very bluntly in statements in the past. The Pro Tour system is designed to give players something to aspire to and to help encourage interest in Magic so they can sell more packs. I don't see how this is different now. That it is slanted more toward "quantity instead of quality" is actually a positive thing because they are trying to get more people to play the game more often. I'm terribly sorry that you can't play once every six months and qualify for the Pro Tour anymore... (Wait, could you ever really do that? And, oh yeah you still can, it's called PTQs) but why is it bad to have active, enthusiastic players, who might make good ambassadors for the game, qualifying for Pro Tours? Oh and they still have to do well because millions of players play weekly and some live in areas where there's a PTQ every weekend. Participation points aren't going to cut it in and of themself.

3) It's always been difficult to qualify on rating, you had to be the top 100. You still have to be the top 100. Are all the people complaining really in the top 100 often enough so that this change is that significant?

4) FNMs being weighted more than Thursday night drafts etc - Wizards considers FNM the most important play program for "acquisition". Do you guys know what that means? It means they want to "acquire" more consumers of their product. It's not bad for us, we get more people to play/trade with and maybe even our participation/number of rounds will go up a notch so that we all benefit. No business is or should be content merely with the buyers it already has but nowhere do we directly see the benefits of growth like we do in Magic. If Magic wasn't doing well, do you think other businesses like Star City Games and TCG Player would be running their own "Pro Tours"? We reap the rewards then complain that Wizards just wants to make money. Well I just want to have a good time. Nobody is taking advantage of anyone else, it's mutually beneficial for all.

5) People are afraid of new things. Try it out and see if it's decent before you let a fear-response jerk you around like a predictable puppet. "I'm definitely going to sell my cards after this!" people have screamed in impotent rage whenever there's any change but the machinery of good business, a great game, and great players keeps moving on. It'll move on without you if you let it. So sell your Lotuses, Force of Wills, Tarmogoyfs, Jaces, Duals, Fetches or whatever because you're angry. You're the only one that loses in the end. This game is destined to keep growing and succeeding and you'll look back and see that your cards are worth double or triple than what you sold them for because Magic will remain a great game.

In summary, I can't help but wondering why the players that play the least, complain the most. In this case it's obvious because the complaints are: "I don't play much but now I can't random Q on rating, so whatever, I quit (a game I was barely playing anyway)". The main vessel for qualifying for the Pro Tour has always been the PTQ circuit and nothing about that is changed. I personally think competing season to season with other players in my region to see who can be the highest on the leaderboard is going to be a lot of fun. So what if FNMs are scaled high? Only 100 people are going to qualify on rating anyway, out of millions.