|
2 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2011 - 5:54PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2010
|
So a number of situations come up here that I'd like to know the answer to:
-Doesn't this encourage "big fish in a little pond" situations (or vice versa completely lock those players out of competing for seasonal points)? It all comes down to how participation points are determined. Previously players who wanted to work on boosting their rating were encouraged to play against other highly rated players, whereas now it seems like players are encouraged to play "competively" against the weakest players they can find. Locally I could go play at the shop where all the grinders play and 100+ people show up weekly for FNM, here I will likely 3-0 one out of four FNM drafts; however, I could also go to a local comic shop where they are barely able to scrape enough players together to fire off one draft at FNM and more than likely 3-0 much more regularly.
Depending on how participation point are calculated this either completely locks some players out, or it encourages players to abandon large "hub" style stores. It seems like there is very little chance to find balance between the two, and in a sense creates a new meta game of "Where am I most likely to win?"
-Is it intended that now this encourages players planning to drop from a tournament to wait for the next round and then immediately concede to their opponent and then drop?
-If you're going to encourage players to grind out events in a sense (which I'm not saying is a bad or good thing) why not also integrate MTGO into the new rating system?
-While Mike Turian seems ecstatic about the "casual points", I don't understand why I should be. Your "level" means absolutely nothing, there are no rewards and it is not a metric for skill at all. Why not at the very least reimplement the player rewards program?
-With the previous system (and outside of the "rating sitting" meta game) it was very easy to tell who was a better player assuming that each player had played enough games even if they'd never played with one another since it was in a sense a zero-sum system. With the new points system, that metric is gone completely, is there still a way to determine skill?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2011 - 6:05PM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2005
|
My only complaint is the term "Planeswalker points." It sounds childish after the bold "DCI rating".
Also, Guildmage here.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2011 - 6:10PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Oct 12, 2007
|
New system seems fine to me. But I'm amused that you can show up to a 16-player FNM tournament, concede all your matches, and still get 6 points. (16 people -> 2 "participation points"; 3x multiplier for FNM.)
The "participation bonus" -- "bring your friends!" -- seems so gimmicky, like some kind of spammy Zynga game. But hey, social pressure works for lots of games, like WoW, so maybe it will drive attendence for Magic too.
I just wish they had found a way to keep the good-player-vs-bad-player weighting of the old system. In the new system, you get 3 points for a win whether you defeat Jon Finkel or Steve McNoob. So you want to find the events with the McNoobs and not the Finkels.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2011 - 6:11PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Mar 25, 2006
|
So a number of situations come up here that I'd like to know the answer to:
...
-While Mike Turian seems ecstatic about the "casual points", I don't understand why I should be. Your "level" means absolutely nothing, there are no rewards and it is not a metric for skill at all. Why not at the very least reimplement the player rewards program?
-With the previous system (and outside of the "rating sitting" meta game) it was very easy to tell who was a better player assuming that each player had played enough games even if they'd never played with one another since it was in a sense a zero-sum system. With the new points system, that metric is gone completely, is there still a way to determine skill?
The thing I found weirdest about this article was the fact that Turian, widely considered one of the most skilled couple of limited players ever, talked about how bad the ELO system was by using his own high ELO rating as an example. Supposing he weren't in the Hall of Fame, and suppose he left WoTC to get some other full time job, he basically wouldn't ever be able to play on the Pro Tour again, even though he's one of the best ever.
This will get more people into the stores to grind out experience points, but it means that "ratings-based" Pro Tour invites can never have any connection to skill.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2011 - 7:14PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2008
|
Since DCI ratings played a very small role in competitive Magic, the fact that this new system, by not taking one's opponent into account, is less skill-based than the old system may not be too big a problem.
I'm surprised, though, that it hasn't provoked more outrage than... certain mechanical innovations coming in the new Innistrad set.
EDIT: When I wrote this, I didn't realize that the announcement was just made today, rather than, say, a week ago, and I just hadn't noticed.
But then, I only heard about it since, almost randomly, I decided to listen to an episode "The Magic Show" on which it was discussed. Maybe others didn't hear of it, maybe it doesn't affect most people, or maybe they like having a better chance of getting in on the Pro Tour.
Because of the role of randomness in Magic, I agree that it should be rated in a different fashion than Chess. One way to take randomness into account would simply be to change the weighting factor in the old system so that ratings don't change as much after each game. But that, of course, has its own problems - so maybe something like Planeswalker Points is the best compromise.
Coming up with weird ideas to make everyone happy since 2008! I have now started a blog as an appropriate place to put my crazy ideas.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2011 - 7:33PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2008
|
When WoW came out with it's original honor system, it was based on simply accumulating points (but with points degrading from week to week based on some formula). It ended up in massive collusion between people wanting to hit the highest level, Grand Marshal/High Warlord, with a priority system in which the group would help you grind based on how long you had been involved, and even a union-like system to discourage outsiders from over-grinding. People were sharing accounts in order to grind 24/7 and more than a few ended up with serious carpal-tunnel or other adverse health effects.
Blizzard has looooooong since changed that system.
This new points system for magic is very similar to what was in WoW. There are always hardcore people in any game with some amount of competition. I don't know what measures people will come up with as RL is different from WoW, but I fully expect to see a similar gaming of the system here.
The ELO system was pretty bad. The only thing this is better at is increasing attendance. And possibly at getting people to cheat the system. It is actually worse at filling the po tour with players of skill.
Poorly thought out, made worse by the fact that there are some online games already out there that have already solved this issue, but the guys at wotc play so much magic they don't have time to learn from other games.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2011 - 7:33PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2010
|
It is the top 16 slots.
However when you top 16 a GP you are already close to Qing for a PT. You just need to grind a few FNM's and maybe attend a few more WPN events. Unless I am mistaken. If I am someone please tell me.
You're actually much further than you think. I've heard estimates that there will be as many as 20-30 gps in the states in the next year, those estimates seem rather high, but you never know. We'll go with 20 just to be on the low end.
Assuming there were 20, and you t16'd a gp you'd be as close to getting an invite as the other 320 players that t16'd, and that's only if none of them played any other events.
However it's not quite like that on second thought because of "seasons". Sticking with 20 GP's we should divide that by 4, given the number of pt's including worlds. So that's 80 players, and only 10 of them will get invites.
Strictly considering GP's it is now FAR more difficult to qualify for the pro-tour than it previously was. The top player of a GP should expect to make it to the pro-tour assuming they continue to play other events that season, however even if they win it is not necessarily garunteed. If you're trying to qualify for the PT you're more likely to do so by winning a PTQ.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2011 - 7:47PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Jul 19, 2009
|
This announcement makes me feel terrible. Apparently Wizards values quantity of play over quality of play. I guess because it will get more money out of people's wallets and into theirs. Before this, I was ranked 336 in my state. Now I'm 1365. That's what I get for trying to play at my absolute best rather than just jamming whatever pile I can get my hands on as much as possible while wasting money on entrance fees I would have had no chance of making back with prizes. My proudest moment playing this game was at the Scars pre-release. While these mean little to many players, people like me who can not afford to play often treasure what events we can get. At the time, it was by far the largest event I had ever been to. Before the event, I read lots of articles on how to prepare mentally for tournaments which got me into a zone I will not soon forget. From the moment I received my packs, I had the fire that the pros talked about in those articles. I beat every one of my opponents, in many nail-biters, using every skill I had ever learned along the way. I fondly remember carrying a big stack of packs home and going to look at the DCI site to see that many of my opponents were ranked much higher than myself. My rating soared to heights it had not been before. I felt immense amounts of validation for my concentration and preparation, all in front of my supportive friends. Well now, it counts for just as much as all the times I went 2-2 at FNM. It feels like I've been kicked in the gut. Thanks Wizards.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2011 - 8:01PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2008
|
After giving the matter some more thought, I do have some suggestions for what Wizards could have done instead.
They could have kept the existing DCI ratings system, but based byes and Pro Tour admissions not on your current rating, but on your maximum rating over the previous 12 months. That would have fixed the problem of playing more leading to a risk of your rating going down, while still keeping the rating as highly skill based.
A second option would be to keep the old DCI ratings around, but use Planeswalker Points as the method of deciding admission to those extra Pro Tour spots. But use the DCI rating of one's opponent to determine a second multiplier for awarding Planeswalker Points!
Also, of course, they could use both of those ideas - use the DCI ratings to determine a multiplier, and have some spots based on one's maximum rating over the past year while other spots are based on Planeswalker Points. Of course, this may be too complicated.
Coming up with weird ideas to make everyone happy since 2008! I have now started a blog as an appropriate place to put my crazy ideas.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 06, 2011 - 8:01PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Nov 20, 2010
|
I get 9 points for winning a 20 minute FNM game. But I get 3 points for winning a six player three hour Commander game?
I mean most Commander players probably aren't looking at the pro tour anyway, but I still think its unfortunate that you chose to overhaul the system in a way that is completely disproportionate to Commander, since there are only casual Commander events.
|
|
|
