I have a large FNM store. I tend to play a lot of limited at that store. The last time I went 3-0 at that store, I scored 36 points (Field of 56 players). 204 points is 5 times that size total. That is a huge amount. That's added a whole Month to my score for just one event. If I was playing at smaller shops, that would even be MORE satisfying.
Ah, OK. Then have I got the system for you. Checkpoints! Relevant section at 3:41, inspired by a new Call of Duty service.
Free MTGO Tournaments you should be playing: Pauper (all commons) - Tuesday Nights, prizes by MTGOTraders Peasant (Pauper + 5 uncommons, with paper rarity) - Sunday Nights, prizes by MTGOTraders Silverblack (Modern-era Commons and Uncommons - Most Wednesday nights, prizes by MTGO Bazaar Heirloom ("Cheap" cards only, e.g. rares under 20 cents) - Sunday afternoons, sponsored by MTGOTraders Check the superbly-made Gatherling site for more.
Other games you should try: Spectromancer - Online card game by Richard Garfield, available cheap on Steam. DC Universe Online - action-based MMO. Free to play. Surprised me how well designed it is. Simunomics - Free-to-play economy simulation game.
If you're going to enter into a debate about statistics, please think ahead to the arguments that are going to be made to defend the points you're rebutting and how yours are going to be negated. I already considered each and every one of the things you mentioned. Fortunately, this isn't really directed at you but rather at those at WotC who will read these posts and may yet realize the need to reverse this decision.
I'm not in a debate about statistics, given the fact that there are no statistics here.
The tournament results and values derived from them fit that definition. Well, at least as long as the DCI Rating was in use - the only "theories of probability" with regard to Planeswalker Points relate to trying to make educated guesses on how many rounds others T.O.'s will run in their events and whether you can convince your T.O. and local players in your area to run even more than that.
#2 - The decisions of Tournament Organizers are virtually irrelevant with regard to the old DCI Rating system. They simply hold tournaments, people attend them, and those are successfuly enough receive byes and invites from the DCI.
Tournament organizers are important for the ranking system because they need to know the number of people attending their events, especially at the level of the Pro Tour. You can only create certainty for the tournament organizers (on how many people are coming) or for the players (on what the cutoff point will be). You cannot create both. Wizards has clearly been shown to prefer certainty for the tournament organizer.
I already answered that in a subsequent point - the last statement in #4. The number of invites to Nationals and the Pro Tour are fixed values, they are not and never have been based on reaching a specific Rating. Those are assigned by ranking by rating. Those events are going to have the same number of people in attendance regardless of whether they're chosen by fixed-date DCI Rating, the system I propose, the Planeswalker Points method, or (in theory) a random drawing of all active players.
#3 - The law of statistics does NOT suggest that a particular player will hit a "hot streak" sufficient to get them over a particular threshold. That's the old "monkeys with typewriters" fallacy. Some people will, some won't, and even of those that do, there's no guarantee that it'll happen at a time that their rating is high enough for the duration of that winning streak to get them over the threshold.
There's no fallacy in monkeys with typewriters. Beyond that, I did not even go into monkeys with typewriters. To apply the concept of monkeys with typewriters to the idea of a cutoff point would be to say that every single competitive player in the world would make the cutoff point, because given infinite chances, every single player manages to get over the cutoff point at some point in time. At no point was the concept of infinity introduced into my argument. Rather, it is a simple fact that playing more often will make it more likely for a player to put together a string of results that will put him over the cutoff point, not unlike the way people can grind Qualifiers.
It's a matter of perspective regarding your original statement. I took the tone of your words to indicate that it was a certainty, not a likelihood:
Because one only needs to get above a specific threshold once, this encourages players to just play and play, because the laws of statistics (and here they actually do come into play) state that if they play enough matches, at some point they'll randomly get on a hot streak and cross the threshold. It doesn't matter that he reverses to the mean afterwards, as he only had to cross the line once.
Granted, it does hinge on the presumption that this theoretical player you're referencing will play "enough" matches to hit that hot streak. The difference with Planeswalker Points is that it removes the need to hit a hot streak. All you need is the ability to get to enough tournaments running enough rounds and put up enough wins at them. Not sure there's all that much validity to using either a measure of player ability. However, out of the two, I'd respectfully suggest that it takes a higher level of ability to win consistently enough to get a DCI Rating to a point where it matters compared to piling up Planeswalker Points. However, as it's something I'm addressing later I'll leave it for now.
Also, I addressed the issue of how to maintain the volume of byes awarded under a system where the top rating over a period is used with my next point. To wit:
#4 - The requirements for byes would, by necessity, be increased to take into account the stastical near-certainty that more people are going to be over 1850/1950/2050 at some point over a qualifying period than on a specific cut-off date. Solution is pretty straightforward on Wizards' part: figure out how many Ratings-based byes have been available at each level up to now, take a look at past periods on where the threshold would have had to be placed to match up with those numbers, then adjust upwards slightly to take into account the fact that people will be encouraged to play more in an attempt to reach those thresholds at some point over the period. As for the number of invites to Nationals or Pro Tour events, those are already fixed values so using a players' top rating over the qualifying period won't make any difference in that regard from using the rating as of a specific date.
This can be done under any system, and as soon as we get some data on the Planeswalker Points system people will start doing it on their own as well (given the amount of statistics that random people already keep, I fully expect to see an analysis of invite/bye cutoff points at some point in the futue).
There are two divergent problems with that. Either the people will see those numbers, realize they can't attain them, and give up OR they'll push for even more rounds from their T.O.'s, escalating the situation from one week to the next or one season to the next. Do we really have to get to the point where T.O.'s have to start FNMs earlier and earlier, run 40-minute rounds, and play until Wizards Event Reporter simply cannot perform any more pairings, just to keep up with what other T.O.'s and their players have been pushed to do by the PWP system?
#6 - Dividing by the number of tournaments played wouldn't solve the problems inherent in this system. In fact, it would create more. If you'd taken the time to think about the ramifications of the idea, you wouldn't have suggested it. It has two critical flaws: a player will look around for one tournament and hope they can be very successful in it AND try to have it run with as many rounds as possible. If they can manage that *one* big score, they can sit on it for the season and sit back while everyone else futilely chases it. The only way others could hope to overtake someone that did that would be to push their T.O.'s for longer and longer tournaments, hoping that with the extra rounds they can pile up enough points to overcome the drag of their earlier ones on their average PWPs per event.
One can simply use a minimum required amount of tournaments that must be played to count, or use this average score as another multiplier. The options to tweak the Planeswalker Points system are endless. It's even possible to turn it into an Elo-like system.
Do I think the new system is inherently better than the Elo? Not particularly. At the very least, this system promotes grinding far too much and thus leads to very silly rankings. But it would behoove some people to also think about the flaws of the fixes presented here for the Elo. Whatever solution you propose, you're going to have bad incentives.
Here's the thing: minimum number of tournaments isn't going to make a sufficient difference, not when the amount being divided is based on the number of rounds that players successfully petition their T.O.'s to run. Also, that wouldn't eliminate the primary problem that this change to Planeswalker Points is supposed to address: encouraging the top players to show up for local events. Either they're going to build up a huge number of points by doing well at PTs, GPs, and Nationals and therefore avoid those local events because they'd lower their average OR they'll do poorly at those events and then there's no incentive to try to use the local events to try to play catch-up with those who were successful there.
That said, I agree with your final point. Problems are inherent in using EITHER rating system to provide incentives or ANY system for that matter. The other games I know which have them - chess and Scrabble - use them to determine the divisions in which people will play and how they'll be paired up over the course of the tournament. If someone could even figure out a way to artificially inflate their rating for those games, the only consequence would be to find themselves overmatched by their competition. Take away the incentives - byes and invites - and it doesn't matter whether they're using DCI Rating, Planeswalker Points, or any other system. Of course, if ratings and rankings don't matter, there's little justification to maintaining the system and, in my opinion, even less at putting a different one into place. That's especially true if the new system suggests that I'm a much better player than I know I am while the old one provided a more accurate assessment.
The tournament results and values derived from them fit that definition. Well, at least as long as the DCI Rating was in use - the only "theories of probability" with regard to Planeswalker Points relate to trying to make educated guesses on how many rounds others T.O.'s will run in their events and whether you can convince your T.O. and local players in your area to run even more than that.
There's no data and no statistical analysis here. Practically every argument here has been based on game theory and economic maximalization.
I already answered that in a subsequent point - the last statement in #4. The number of invites to Nationals and the Pro Tour are fixed values, they are not and never have been based on reaching a specific Rating. Those are assigned by ranking by rating. Those events are going to have the same number of people in attendance regardless of whether they're chosen by fixed-date DCI Rating, the system I propose, the Planeswalker Points method, or (in theory) a random drawing of all active players.
Well, I'm glad that we agree that one of the failures of the Planeswalker Points system extends to every other system as well.
It's a matter of perspective regarding your original statement. I took the tone of your words to indicate that it was a certainty, not a likelihood:
Because one only needs to get above a specific threshold once, this encourages players to just play and play, because the laws of statistics (and here they actually do come into play) state that if they play enough matches, at some point they'll randomly get on a hot streak and cross the threshold. It doesn't matter that he reverses to the mean afterwards, as he only had to cross the line once.
Granted, it does hinge on the presumption that this theoretical player you're referencing will play "enough" matches to hit that hot streak.
Assuming infinity, it becomes a certainty. In this particular case, it's simply a matter of sub-average players getting in because they play enough.
The difference with Planeswalker Points is that it removes the need to hit a hot streak. All you need is the ability to get to enough tournaments running enough rounds and put up enough wins at them. Not sure there's all that much validity to using either a measure of player ability. However, out of the two, I'd respectfully suggest that it takes a higher level of ability to win consistently enough to get a DCI Rating to a point where it matters compared to piling up Planeswalker Points. However, as it's something I'm addressing later I'll leave it for now.
We shall have to see how competitive these cutoffs become, but I highly doubt that we'll wind up with invites for just any old grinder. At the very least they will have to be good players as well. Like I already mentioned before (when I suggested a multiplier based on the win percentage) I think they went too far on this, but we can only wait and see what happens.
There are two divergent problems with that. Either the people will see those numbers, realize they can't attain them, and give up OR they'll push for even more rounds from their T.O.'s, escalating the situation from one week to the next or one season to the next. Do we really have to get to the point where T.O.'s have to start FNMs earlier and earlier, run 40-minute rounds, and play until Wizards Event Reporter simply cannot perform any more pairings, just to keep up with what other T.O.'s and their players have been pushed to do by the PWP system?
I cannot say what the effects of this change are going to be at an FNM level. I do not know what percentage of players who participates in FNMs takes this seriously. I see the bad possibilities there, though.
Here's the thing: minimum number of tournaments isn't going to make a sufficient difference, not when the amount being divided is based on the number of rounds that players successfully petition their T.O.'s to run. Also, that wouldn't eliminate the primary problem that this change to Planeswalker Points is supposed to address: encouraging the top players to show up for local events. Either they're going to build up a huge number of points by doing well at PTs, GPs, and Nationals and therefore avoid those local events because they'd lower their average OR they'll do poorly at those events and then there's no incentive to try to use the local events to try to play catch-up with those who were successful there.
I haven't seen any suggestion so far this thread which managed to get that incentive in there somewhere. One must admit that the PWP system is at least the best for that, even if it only does so by madly supporting grinding.
That said, I agree with your final point. Problems are inherent in using EITHER rating system to provide incentives or ANY system for that matter. The other games I know which have them - chess and Scrabble - use them to determine the divisions in which people will play and how they'll be paired up over the course of the tournament. If someone could even figure out a way to artificially inflate their rating for those games, the only consequence would be to find themselves overmatched by their competition. Take away the incentives - byes and invites - and it doesn't matter whether they're using DCI Rating, Planeswalker Points, or any other system. Of course, if ratings and rankings don't matter, there's little justification to maintaining the system and, in my opinion, even less at putting a different one into place. That's especially true if the new system suggests that I'm a much better player than I know I am while the old one provided a more accurate assessment.
The Elo system has some obvious problems in a game where the metagame match-up is just as important as the relative skill level. In a way, the PWP system solves this problem. It is probably also good for Wizards, financially speaking (though most of the gains are going to accrue to Wizards and the big stores rather than the small stores).
I should really check to see how many Planeswalker Points I got for participating in 30-odd Prereleases.
Here's the thing: minimum number of tournaments isn't going to make a sufficient difference, not when the amount being divided is based on the number of rounds that players successfully petition their T.O.'s to run. Also, that wouldn't eliminate the primary problem that this change to Planeswalker Points is supposed to address: encouraging the top players to show up for local events. Either they're going to build up a huge number of points by doing well at PTs, GPs, and Nationals and therefore avoid those local events because they'd lower their average OR they'll do poorly at those events and then there's no incentive to try to use the local events to try to play catch-up with those who were successful there.
I haven't seen any suggestion so far this thread which managed to get that incentive in there somewhere. One must admit that the PWP system is at least the best for that, even if it only does so by madly supporting grinding.
There are many ways to incentivize under either system- even to target a specific player profile. Unfortunately, the new system disincentivizes indiscriminately based on player demographics.
If we separate the constituent parts which make up the the PWP system, it's easier to see that it is the addition of seasons that provides most of the incentive. Adding 4 month seasons to Magic in itself drives players to stores to increase rating or build points. Players are able to set realistic achievable goals that work with their lifestyles and are importantly heedless of the efforts/life situations of other players. Seasons would have provided most of the improvements being touted under the new program. Attendance could still have increased in importance by simply adding multipliers to rating based on seasonal attendance or requiring minimal participation for awards. Whether seasons were added under the new or old model made little difference as far as providing these benefits, however with the new structure, we get a lot of negatives that discriminate based on lifestyle choices/situation.
More senior players likely scoff at their Planeswalker level appelation. Clearly, achieving a higher Planeswalker level is not the driving force causing players to compete for higher levels of success. After all, there is no reward to achieving a higher Planeswalker level. New players may be deceived at first into getting excited about it until they realize that they don't actually get anything out of grinding out higher levels.
Adding a variety of levels of goals to achieve during each season would be another incentive that can be utilized in either system. Restarting each season equal to our peers would lend credibility that those who receive the awards at the end of each season really deserve them- whether by effort or skill. If there is a desire to lower the bar for noobs, then some suggestions would be to include an attendance multiplier, build in ratings-relative pairings, set aside a few invites specifically to those who have never attended PTs or even include a low rating level which, if achieved, gives a significant, but random, prize (i.e. 2 random PT invites in a drawing for everyone who achieves an 1850 rating. I would suggest weighting such a system similar to the NBA lottery, where players would get one entry for each tournament attended.
On another note, I was pleased to hear that this conversion was at least bounced off a few player representatives first. Can I now ask the question why this panel selected did not mention any of these issues? Or if they did, why are the issues being allowed to remain in play? And if they were known and not mentioned, then WOTC must have known that this fallout would arise. Is it possible that those player representatives had other motivations and that they really shouldn't be considered as player representatives? No offense to Mr. star LSV- but it seems like his business interests and protecting his status atop the PT might conflict. And as for asking BDM, Puh-leeeze. His softball questions clearly show where his interests lie.
I cannot say what the effects of this change are going to be at an FNM level. I do not know what percentage of players who participates in FNMs takes this seriously. I see the bad possibilities there, though.
{emphasis mine}
That's the point I've been trying to get across all along and I plan to be an instigator of one of those "bad possibilities" if the PWP system is still around at the the beginning of next year as scheduled. I know what's needed in that regard as I've made enough other people in equivalent positions scrap rating systems or similarly ill-advised policies and structures over the years. On the plus side, even if WotC decides that what I do DOESN'T disprove the validity of their system, a lot of my fellow locals players are going to benefit from it. BIG TIME.
The Elo system has some obvious problems in a game where the metagame match-up is just as important as the relative skill level. In a way, the PWP system solves this problem. It is probably also good for Wizards, financially speaking (though most of the gains are going to accrue to Wizards and the big stores rather than the small stores).
That's an issue but it's one that is not restricted to Magic. I once saw a player whose overall skill at chess was less than that of the group of which I was a part but he'd spent a lot of time studying certain unorthodox openings. Even though he wasn't as *technically* sound as the rest of us, he was able to steer games into positions where he could gain a sufficient advantage which more than compensated for his overall ability. For awhile, he was the most successful player among us and his Elo Rating showed it. Then we studied the same openings he was using, learned how to steer clear of the disadvantages we had been walking into, and his success dissipated and rating dropped back to where it was.
As for the financial gains, I'm personally not seeing the cause-and-effect. Pushing people away from Limited due to time constraints cuts that off as a potential revenue stream. Also, there's no more $$$ going into WotC's pocket because a T.O. runs a 5-round FNM instead of a 4-rounder if the same number of people attend.
I suppose there's the potential related to trying to bring as many friends, family, and acquaintances into the game - with deck made from excess commons & uncommons most likely - to swell the ranks of your FNM and some of them might enjoy the game sufficiently to become customers themselves. However, if WotC is thinking that Planeswalker Points is capable of that, I would respectfully suggest that they check into the effectiveness of their previous similar programs such as Guru. More precisely, the volume of people who took advantage of those programs without bothering to teach/encourage people to play the game.
