Whenever watching a big modern event I often hear the commentators state "player A will be on the play therefore he/she is advantaged in this game". And, barring mulligans, I agree.
I find this to be more true in modern than perhaps any other competitive format. Why? Because there so many linear and aggressive decks that many games simply come down to races. Who can assemble their combo first; who can deal 20 damage first; who can land their haymaker first.
Legacy has Force of Will and other very cheap interactive cards to somewhat offset this advantage. Standard and draft are often slow enough for this advantage to be as apparent.
Are there inherent advantages to being on the draw? Yes. If enough resources are constantly being traded between players, then the player who had the one extra card will have more options and thus be favored.
The problem with this is that there are not that many attrition-based archetypes compared to the number of aggressive-based archetypes, and thus for most decks in the format the advantage is skewed towards having the play rather than the draw.
Can this problem be addressed? In theory yes. If the power of reactive cards can increase enough to match the power level of proactive ones, we can see the play advantage matter less and less. However, barring a few outliers (Fatal Push), this does not seem to be the case. New cards that are powerful enough to be played in modern are often not reactive ones. Therefore, I do not see this problem ever resolving. And, if left unresolved, we can only admit that random chance is playing a dangerously high role in the outcome of our games.
In almost every game, going first is an advantage- an obvious consequence of a zero sum game (both players can't win, so you have to win first). The size of the advantage depends on how it is offset, and in magic we do that by giving the opponent an extra card.
In modern, this method of offsetting the advantage is particularly ineffective. The reason for this is that modern is a format that tends to have games over fairly quickly, where a player might not have had the chance to use their extra card. The more likely a player is to die before using their extra card, the stronger the "on the play" position becomes.
In chess, going first is also an advantage. In order to make sure this advantage is shared equally by all, the tournament structure is designed to make sure that going first is distributed as equitably as possible - and alternating as much as possible.
I think the best answer here is just as is used in chess. You are not going to be able to negate the advantage, so it is best to simply make sure the advantage is distributed as best as possible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
So as you elude to in the OP, the issue with Modern and the Play VS Draw 'problem' is that most answers we have access to in Modern are proactive instead of reactive.
You mention how Legacy has access to Force of Will. Force is the staple card of Legacy which helps to define it as a format with reactive answers.
Conversely, Modern has Thoughtseize and Inquisition of Kozilek essentially as it's Force equivalents. Notice however that unlike Force of Will, Thoughtseize and Inquisition are both proactive cards.
Modern is a format where you are rewarded for stopping your opponent from doing something all together, rather than reacting to them doing something. Then you have the Play VS Draw scenario. Since Modern is a format centered around being proactive, the person who goes first, and thus gets to be proactive first, is highly favoured. Add to this the mana disparity between being on the play versus the draw, and it adds up to a huge advantage to whoever wins the die roll.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
Yup. Travis Woo did a video about this once. He said that die rolls, etc should not determine the play because the vast majority of times in all formats going first is a major advantage. That chess already does it would provide a template. It is very weird that something so critical is taken so casually by the tournament organizer.
Yup. Travis Woo did a video about this once. He said that die rolls, etc should not determine the play because the vast majority of times in all formats going first is a major advantage. That chess already does it would provide a template. It is very weird that something so critical is taken so casually by the tournament organizer.
The problem is the logistics of it. I'll outline what I would have as an optimal* way to run the whole Play/Draw scenario at Comp REL or higher.
For starters, who is on the play and who is on the draw is written out on your match slip, as well as on the pairings board. Basically on the pairings board it you would see something like:
Table # Your Name - 1/2
1 denotes you being on the play, 2 would be you being on the draw. Now then, how is each of those determined?
Round 1 - Randomly. The computer doing the random pairings also randomly selects a player to be on the play. Basically the same as we have now only without the dice.
Round 2+: Who is on the play follows a simple structure:
1. Was Player A on the Play, and Player B on the Draw last Round? If yes, Player A is on the Draw and Player B is on the Play.
2. Was Player A on the Draw, and Player B on the Play last Round? If yes, Player A is on the Play and Player B is on the Draw.
3. Were both Player A and Player B on the Play last Round? If yes, the player with the lower match win percentage gets the Play.
4. Were both Player A and Player B on the Draw last Round? If yes, the player with the lower match win percentage gets the Draw.
Now first off, there are a few logistical problems with this. First is that since you are putting the play/draw on the match slip and pairing boards, you need to make sure players get the correct information. Do you make it so rounds don't start until everyone gets their match slips? Then rounds will definitely last at least 5-10 minutes longer. Okay, well just have people start when you normally would. Well what do you do in a situation where someone lies about being on the play or the draw? How would you structure the rules in the event someone tries to pull a, "You read it wrong, I am on the play." before match slips show up and the game has already started by the time they are there? Does the lying player get a game loss? Do they get a warning? DQ'd?
Finally, there is the issue of aggro decks. There are times where I hear players commenting on how they only won as many games as they did with their aggro deck because they won the die roll every round and go to be on the Play every Round for Game 1. Well under this system, on average the aggro player will get the Play every other round. WOuld this hamper aggressive decks enough that they're no longer nearly as good in the format?
*By optimal I mean that this is how I would personally do it. If you think you have a better idea, then by all means, suggest it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
The chess pairing software takes into account who is on the play, and prints it out on the same sheet as the table pairings. There is no reason that this can't be done for magic - they do use pairing software after all. In chess there is a structure of rules to decide who gets to play first, and the software helps by repairing optimally to match those who last had opposite starts. This can all be done automatically and easily. I could do it by hand - I've done it enough by hand in chess that I could do it for a magic event fairly easily.
edit: In chess, if a game is played where players used the wrong colours, the game stands. Both parties are responsible for looking at their table number, I don't see why play/draw would be different.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
So as you elude to in the OP, the issue with Modern and the Play VS Draw 'problem' is that most answers we have access to in Modern are proactive instead of reactive.
You mention how Legacy has access to Force of Will. Force is the staple card of Legacy which helps to define it as a format with reactive answers.
Conversely, Modern has Thoughtseize and Inquisition of Kozilek essentially as it's Force equivalents. Notice however that unlike Force of Will, Thoughtseize and Inquisition are both proactive cards.
Modern is a format where you are rewarded for stopping your opponent from doing something all together, rather than reacting to them doing something. Then you have the Play VS Draw scenario. Since Modern is a format centered around being proactive, the person who goes first, and thus gets to be proactive first, is highly favoured. Add to this the mana disparity between being on the play versus the draw, and it adds up to a huge advantage to whoever wins the die roll.
Even though Thoughtseize and Inquisition are pro-active, they help contribute towards an attrition-based game plan, so they will actually help to alleviate play advantage. This is why 8-rack is one of the few decks in modern that has sometimes chosen to take the draw.
I'm not sure about randomly assigning play/draw by the TO. I think a better move would be to make the advantage more equal so that it doesn't matter as much who is on the play or not.
Yup. Travis Woo did a video about this once. He said that die rolls, etc should not determine the play because the vast majority of times in all formats going first is a major advantage. That chess already does it would provide a template. It is very weird that something so critical is taken so casually by the tournament organizer.
The problem is the logistics of it. I'll outline what I would have as an optimal* way to run the whole Play/Draw scenario at Comp REL or higher.
For starters, who is on the play and who is on the draw is written out on your match slip, as well as on the pairings board. Basically on the pairings board it you would see something like:
Table # Your Name - 1/2
1 denotes you being on the play, 2 would be you being on the draw. Now then, how is each of those determined?
Round 1 - Randomly. The computer doing the random pairings also randomly selects a player to be on the play. Basically the same as we have now only without the dice.
Round 2+: Who is on the play follows a simple structure:
1. Was Player A on the Play, and Player B on the Draw last Round? If yes, Player A is on the Draw and Player B is on the Play.
2. Was Player A on the Draw, and Player B on the Play last Round? If yes, Player A is on the Play and Player B is on the Draw.
3. Were both Player A and Player B on the Play last Round? If yes, the player with the lower match win percentage gets the Play.
4. Were both Player A and Player B on the Draw last Round? If yes, the player with the lower match win percentage gets the Draw.
Now first off, there are a few logistical problems with this. First is that since you are putting the play/draw on the match slip and pairing boards, you need to make sure players get the correct information. Do you make it so rounds don't start until everyone gets their match slips? Then rounds will definitely last at least 5-10 minutes longer. Okay, well just have people start when you normally would. Well what do you do in a situation where someone lies about being on the play or the draw? How would you structure the rules in the event someone tries to pull a, "You read it wrong, I am on the play." before match slips show up and the game has already started by the time they are there? Does the lying player get a game loss? Do they get a warning? DQ'd?
Finally, there is the issue of aggro decks. There are times where I hear players commenting on how they only won as many games as they did with their aggro deck because they won the die roll every round and go to be on the Play every Round for Game 1. Well under this system, on average the aggro player will get the Play every other round. WOuld this hamper aggressive decks enough that they're no longer nearly as good in the format?
*By optimal I mean that this is how I would personally do it. If you think you have a better idea, then by all means, suggest it
The problem with this is that in the early rounds match win % will often times be equal for both players, would it not be?
You don't want a random assignment imo (we have that now, it's just determined by dice rather than software). Instead, you want players to alternate games where they are the play / draw each round. The system should pair according to swiss rules, modified to allow same-score pairings to be altered to fix play-play pairings and draw-draw pairings.
IMO, the goal is to have play/draw alternate each round for each player. This is easily achieved in software used in other games. I bet I could even just use the chess software to pair a magic tournament to alter play - draw for each player (as much as possible while running a swiss tournament).
Of course you want to minimize the difference in experience between games on the play vs games on the draw, but you'll never achieve perfect parity. No matter what, the players should be alternating whether they are on the play or draw each round since there will always be some advantage to going first (or second!).
I'm actively maintaining a comprehensive article to help explain to new cube players how some complex vintage level cards work in a cube environment. Vintage Cube Cards Explained
Do we have access to empirical data of substantial quantity demonstrating the play advantage? Otherwise this can't really be addressed. You can't fix a problem without knowing how bad, if at all, a situation is.
Do we have access to empirical data of substantial quantity demonstrating the play advantage? Otherwise this can't really be addressed. You can't fix a problem without knowing how bad, if at all, a situation is.
All of that information is readily available through MTGO, but Wizards keeps it locked away because players apparently can't handle having data.
You want data? I'll try to remember to go over all the footage from the SCG Open last weekend. I'll compile a list of how often player's won while on the play vs while on the draw. I know it's a single tournament, but we should be able to draw some simple conclusions from an 18 round event.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks: UBG Lantern Control GBU BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
A statistical analysis will tell you the difference in advantage / disadvantage for going first vs second, but that point is moot: there will always be some difference. If that difference is not controlled, the variance will influence events.
But, as I outlined already, you can fix it by making sure people alternate play / draw each round so that the difference is experienced equally (to the extent possible). This can be done without measuring the difference since it addresses any size difference. Once that is done, you can move on to other ways of addressing it if it still seems like a concern. Controlling the variance of who gets the advantage/disadvantage of going first will marginalize that variance from the event.
You want data? I'll try to remember to go over all the footage from the SCG Open last weekend. I'll compile a list of how often player's won while on the play vs while on the draw. I know it's a single tournament, but we should be able to draw some simple conclusions from an 18 round event.
18-20 hand-picked matches aren't going to provide any real or meaningful data. In the digital world, this info is available for every match that has ever occurred within the platform.
I agree it should not be determined by something as simple as a "roll of the dice", but should always be based on a merit system like how it is done in top 8s of SCG Opens, GPs, and Pro Tours.
Maybe have the player with more Planeswalker Points / Pro Points always have the play game 1? This would further incentive gaining these points and playing more Magic, especially at higher levels.
Leaving such an important part of the game to chance is not something I like to see at the highest levels of competition, of which I consider GPs and SCG Opens to be part of. Even FNMs should do away with this, and focus on a merit system of benefiting the players who play more often.
I agree it should not be determined by something as simple as a "roll of the dice", but should always be based on a merit system like how it is done in top 8s of SCG Opens, GPs, and Pro Tours.
Maybe have the player with more Planeswalker Points / Pro Points always have the play game 1? This would further incentive gaining these points and playing more Magic, especially at higher levels.
Leaving such an important part of the game to chance is not something I like to see at the highest levels of competition, of which I consider GPs and SCG Opens to be part of. Even FNMs should do away with this, and focus on a merit system of benefiting the players who play more often.
Although it is not a bad idea per se, I doubt anything like this will ever happen. Wizards and companies that profit by Wizards are often looking for ways to give newer players a chance to win. This does the opposite of that, the play being super important in Modern probably even more so in my opinion than it is in other formats, slightly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I agree it should not be determined by something as simple as a "roll of the dice", but should always be based on a merit system like how it is done in top 8s of SCG Opens, GPs, and Pro Tours.
Maybe have the player with more Planeswalker Points / Pro Points always have the play game 1? This would further incentive gaining these points and playing more Magic, especially at higher levels.
Leaving such an important part of the game to chance is not something I like to see at the highest levels of competition, of which I consider GPs and SCG Opens to be part of. Even FNMs should do away with this, and focus on a merit system of benefiting the players who play more often.
Although it is not a bad idea per se, I doubt anything like this will ever happen. Wizards and companies that profit by Wizards are often looking for ways to give newer players a chance to win. This does the opposite of that, the play being super important in Modern probably even more so in my opinion than it is in other formats, slightly.
Giving newer players a chance to win is fine for FNM level events, but when it comes to higher levels of competition there should definitely be rewards given to more experienced players.
We already do that by giving players who have enough Planeswalker points a free round 1 bye.
Giving the player with more PWP the play/draw choice would simply be an additional benefit in the same line of thinking as the previous one. It really pushes for players to frequent big events more often because of how many points are awarded just for playing in them, which should create larger turnouts for both FNM and GP-style events
I don't disagree with you, but I think Wizards (and similar companies) prefer to give newer players a chance; and that includes players newer to competitive play. I could be wrong. I know a lot of the money made by Wizards is through casual players, but I feel like there is also a huge percentage made by players joining the game at all levels. It's just something I've noticed in the past 10 or so years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I don't disagree with you, but I think Wizards (and similar companies) prefer to give newer players a chance; and that includes players newer to competitive play. I could be wrong. I know a lot of the money made by Wizards is through casual players, but I feel like there is also a huge percentage made by players joining the game at all levels. It's just something I've noticed in the past 10 or so years.
Wizards has made it abundantly clear that they favor variance over consistency for the very reason of allowing less skilled players to beat more skilled players. This is not just my interpretation, but their very words. It makes perfect sense, given many of their recent actions and statements.
That logic works in reverse, too. A player can get de-motivated by losing four die rolls at FNM and losing before they've done much in the game. There are plenty of differences between casual events like FNM and Game Day and higher level REL events, so there's no argument that WOTC *can't* make such a change for the sake of consistency and fairness at GPs or PPTQs and up.
I do wonder if part of it has to do with WOTCs awful idea of how to make this an esport. They seem to think variance is what can draw a bigger audience, when other games that are successful rarely feature heavy RNG. I'm talking LoL, DOTA, hell Hearthstone has been nerfing variance to validate its competitive scene. I think WOTC just doesn't really understand that market while really trying had to break through it.
Did someone seriously suggest "person who has more planeswalker points goes first?" That's utterly insane. You want to give a literal gameplay advantage to professional players? That's almost so absurd as to be self-refuting.
Being on the play is a *massive* edge. I've heard it computed as high as 10% (so turning a 50/50 matchup into a 60/40 matchup). Assigning that to whoever has played the best previously is just flat out unfair--it'd warp the metagame to decks that do well on the play to a ridiculous degree.
Are people unaware that pros almost invariably have 2 byes already? That's plenty
The idea of assigning it randomly match 1 and then alternating thereafter is clear cut and beautiful. I think that's easily achievable and would seriously increase fairness and reduce variance.
If you wanted to take a potentially simpler approach without matchmaking consequences, you could assign a +1 to the die roll for each net time someone has lost the roll, and print that on the match sheet.
ex. You lose the roll, next round you get +1, you lose the roll again, next round you get +2 and win, next round you get +1 (because you're 1-2 in the dice rolls thus far).
If being on the play is too much of an advantage you don't fix it by assigning the player with more points to go first. That doesn't mitigate any advantage it just means that now one person will have it.
As for modern having the worst play/draw of any format that is just silly. Vintage is absolutely the format where it matters the most considering over 30% of the decks are trying to play a t1 Trinisphere or Thorn of Amethyst before the opponent can play their moxen. Then Legacy where being on the play means you can avoid being dazed and you can set up your threats while dazing/wastelanding your opponent.
Admittedly I haven't known about Vintage for the past 10 years. You are probably correct about that.
Regarding Legacy, I play the format too. I do in fact feel that Modern is more affected by the die roll than Legacy. Legacy games tend to go longer, even if they have a quicker goldfish kill in my experience. Don't get me wrong. It's amazing being on the play vs. a Daze deck. But Legacy is too diverse for that to happen too often (although Grixis Delver is getting somewhat annoying). When Modern games or matches, it is a beautiful (or disgusting thing depending on how you look at it) thing because it doesn't happen often. In Legacy, a lot of games are determined by 1 small error late in a game when both players have been making optimal or close to optimal plays the whole game. I've seen it many times before, whereas in Modern, games rarely go to time. I will admit it's less so after Miracles got Top banned, but I still believe it to be so.
*There's a reason I have rarely beaten Burn on the play, but nearly always on the draw... (part of it is wrongfully ignoring Burn in the meta)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
You want data? I'll try to remember to go over all the footage from the SCG Open last weekend. I'll compile a list of how often player's won while on the play vs while on the draw. I know it's a single tournament, but we should be able to draw some simple conclusions from an 18 round event.
Honestly we would need at least fifty cases to produce anything meaningful for a given matchup. For instance, play or draw may matter a lot for GB Tron vs Affinity but be meaningless in a matchup between Grixis Shadow and Abzan Midrange.
Personally I'd want at least 100 pre-board games and 100 post-board. Mathematically this would lessen the effect of significant outliers like mulligans, hosers, and good old-fashioned punts.
This is why I always promote the practicing of the dice roll in this format, it is one of the FEW things you can actually control the outcome of a match with. Going second in Modern is a death sentence more often than not.
Public Mod Note
(Xaricore):
Infraction issued for promoting of cheating in the game
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I find this to be more true in modern than perhaps any other competitive format. Why? Because there so many linear and aggressive decks that many games simply come down to races. Who can assemble their combo first; who can deal 20 damage first; who can land their haymaker first.
Legacy has Force of Will and other very cheap interactive cards to somewhat offset this advantage. Standard and draft are often slow enough for this advantage to be as apparent.
Are there inherent advantages to being on the draw? Yes. If enough resources are constantly being traded between players, then the player who had the one extra card will have more options and thus be favored.
The problem with this is that there are not that many attrition-based archetypes compared to the number of aggressive-based archetypes, and thus for most decks in the format the advantage is skewed towards having the play rather than the draw.
Can this problem be addressed? In theory yes. If the power of reactive cards can increase enough to match the power level of proactive ones, we can see the play advantage matter less and less. However, barring a few outliers (Fatal Push), this does not seem to be the case. New cards that are powerful enough to be played in modern are often not reactive ones. Therefore, I do not see this problem ever resolving. And, if left unresolved, we can only admit that random chance is playing a dangerously high role in the outcome of our games.
What are your thoughts?
In modern, this method of offsetting the advantage is particularly ineffective. The reason for this is that modern is a format that tends to have games over fairly quickly, where a player might not have had the chance to use their extra card. The more likely a player is to die before using their extra card, the stronger the "on the play" position becomes.
In chess, going first is also an advantage. In order to make sure this advantage is shared equally by all, the tournament structure is designed to make sure that going first is distributed as equitably as possible - and alternating as much as possible.
I think the best answer here is just as is used in chess. You are not going to be able to negate the advantage, so it is best to simply make sure the advantage is distributed as best as possible.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
You mention how Legacy has access to Force of Will. Force is the staple card of Legacy which helps to define it as a format with reactive answers.
Conversely, Modern has Thoughtseize and Inquisition of Kozilek essentially as it's Force equivalents. Notice however that unlike Force of Will, Thoughtseize and Inquisition are both proactive cards.
Modern is a format where you are rewarded for stopping your opponent from doing something all together, rather than reacting to them doing something. Then you have the Play VS Draw scenario. Since Modern is a format centered around being proactive, the person who goes first, and thus gets to be proactive first, is highly favoured. Add to this the mana disparity between being on the play versus the draw, and it adds up to a huge advantage to whoever wins the die roll.
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
The problem is the logistics of it. I'll outline what I would have as an optimal* way to run the whole Play/Draw scenario at Comp REL or higher.
For starters, who is on the play and who is on the draw is written out on your match slip, as well as on the pairings board. Basically on the pairings board it you would see something like:
Table # Your Name - 1/2
1 denotes you being on the play, 2 would be you being on the draw. Now then, how is each of those determined?
Round 1 - Randomly. The computer doing the random pairings also randomly selects a player to be on the play. Basically the same as we have now only without the dice.
Round 2+: Who is on the play follows a simple structure:
1. Was Player A on the Play, and Player B on the Draw last Round? If yes, Player A is on the Draw and Player B is on the Play.
2. Was Player A on the Draw, and Player B on the Play last Round? If yes, Player A is on the Play and Player B is on the Draw.
3. Were both Player A and Player B on the Play last Round? If yes, the player with the lower match win percentage gets the Play.
4. Were both Player A and Player B on the Draw last Round? If yes, the player with the lower match win percentage gets the Draw.
Now first off, there are a few logistical problems with this. First is that since you are putting the play/draw on the match slip and pairing boards, you need to make sure players get the correct information. Do you make it so rounds don't start until everyone gets their match slips? Then rounds will definitely last at least 5-10 minutes longer. Okay, well just have people start when you normally would. Well what do you do in a situation where someone lies about being on the play or the draw? How would you structure the rules in the event someone tries to pull a, "You read it wrong, I am on the play." before match slips show up and the game has already started by the time they are there? Does the lying player get a game loss? Do they get a warning? DQ'd?
Finally, there is the issue of aggro decks. There are times where I hear players commenting on how they only won as many games as they did with their aggro deck because they won the die roll every round and go to be on the Play every Round for Game 1. Well under this system, on average the aggro player will get the Play every other round. WOuld this hamper aggressive decks enough that they're no longer nearly as good in the format?
*By optimal I mean that this is how I would personally do it. If you think you have a better idea, then by all means, suggest it
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
edit: In chess, if a game is played where players used the wrong colours, the game stands. Both parties are responsible for looking at their table number, I don't see why play/draw would be different.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Even though Thoughtseize and Inquisition are pro-active, they help contribute towards an attrition-based game plan, so they will actually help to alleviate play advantage. This is why 8-rack is one of the few decks in modern that has sometimes chosen to take the draw.
I'm not sure about randomly assigning play/draw by the TO. I think a better move would be to make the advantage more equal so that it doesn't matter as much who is on the play or not.
The problem with this is that in the early rounds match win % will often times be equal for both players, would it not be?
IMO, the goal is to have play/draw alternate each round for each player. This is easily achieved in software used in other games. I bet I could even just use the chess software to pair a magic tournament to alter play - draw for each player (as much as possible while running a swiss tournament).
Of course you want to minimize the difference in experience between games on the play vs games on the draw, but you'll never achieve perfect parity. No matter what, the players should be alternating whether they are on the play or draw each round since there will always be some advantage to going first (or second!).
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Vintage Cube Cards Explained
Here are some other articles I've written about fine tuning your cube:
1. Minimum Archetype Support
2. Improving Green Archetypes
3. Improving White Archetypes
4. Matchup Analysis
5. Cube Combos (Work in Progress)
Draft my Cube - https://cubecobra.com/cube/overview/d8i
All of that information is readily available through MTGO, but Wizards keeps it locked away because players apparently can't handle having data.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Modern Decks:
UBG Lantern Control GBU
BRG Bridge-Vine GRB
Commander Decks
UBG Muldrotha, Value Elemental GBU
BRG Windgrace Real-Estate Ltd. GRB
#PayThePros
But, as I outlined already, you can fix it by making sure people alternate play / draw each round so that the difference is experienced equally (to the extent possible). This can be done without measuring the difference since it addresses any size difference. Once that is done, you can move on to other ways of addressing it if it still seems like a concern. Controlling the variance of who gets the advantage/disadvantage of going first will marginalize that variance from the event.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
18-20 hand-picked matches aren't going to provide any real or meaningful data. In the digital world, this info is available for every match that has ever occurred within the platform.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Maybe have the player with more Planeswalker Points / Pro Points always have the play game 1? This would further incentive gaining these points and playing more Magic, especially at higher levels.
Leaving such an important part of the game to chance is not something I like to see at the highest levels of competition, of which I consider GPs and SCG Opens to be part of. Even FNMs should do away with this, and focus on a merit system of benefiting the players who play more often.
Although it is not a bad idea per se, I doubt anything like this will ever happen. Wizards and companies that profit by Wizards are often looking for ways to give newer players a chance to win. This does the opposite of that, the play being super important in Modern probably even more so in my opinion than it is in other formats, slightly.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Giving newer players a chance to win is fine for FNM level events, but when it comes to higher levels of competition there should definitely be rewards given to more experienced players.
We already do that by giving players who have enough Planeswalker points a free round 1 bye.
Giving the player with more PWP the play/draw choice would simply be an additional benefit in the same line of thinking as the previous one. It really pushes for players to frequent big events more often because of how many points are awarded just for playing in them, which should create larger turnouts for both FNM and GP-style events
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Wizards has made it abundantly clear that they favor variance over consistency for the very reason of allowing less skilled players to beat more skilled players. This is not just my interpretation, but their very words. It makes perfect sense, given many of their recent actions and statements.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I do wonder if part of it has to do with WOTCs awful idea of how to make this an esport. They seem to think variance is what can draw a bigger audience, when other games that are successful rarely feature heavy RNG. I'm talking LoL, DOTA, hell Hearthstone has been nerfing variance to validate its competitive scene. I think WOTC just doesn't really understand that market while really trying had to break through it.
Being on the play is a *massive* edge. I've heard it computed as high as 10% (so turning a 50/50 matchup into a 60/40 matchup). Assigning that to whoever has played the best previously is just flat out unfair--it'd warp the metagame to decks that do well on the play to a ridiculous degree.
Are people unaware that pros almost invariably have 2 byes already? That's plenty
The idea of assigning it randomly match 1 and then alternating thereafter is clear cut and beautiful. I think that's easily achievable and would seriously increase fairness and reduce variance.
If you wanted to take a potentially simpler approach without matchmaking consequences, you could assign a +1 to the die roll for each net time someone has lost the roll, and print that on the match sheet.
ex. You lose the roll, next round you get +1, you lose the roll again, next round you get +2 and win, next round you get +1 (because you're 1-2 in the dice rolls thus far).
UW Ephara Hatebears [Primer], GB Gitrog Lands, BRU Inalla Combo-Control, URG Maelstrom Wanderer Landfall
As for modern having the worst play/draw of any format that is just silly. Vintage is absolutely the format where it matters the most considering over 30% of the decks are trying to play a t1 Trinisphere or Thorn of Amethyst before the opponent can play their moxen. Then Legacy where being on the play means you can avoid being dazed and you can set up your threats while dazing/wastelanding your opponent.
Regarding Legacy, I play the format too. I do in fact feel that Modern is more affected by the die roll than Legacy. Legacy games tend to go longer, even if they have a quicker goldfish kill in my experience. Don't get me wrong. It's amazing being on the play vs. a Daze deck. But Legacy is too diverse for that to happen too often (although Grixis Delver is getting somewhat annoying). When Modern games or matches, it is a beautiful (or disgusting thing depending on how you look at it) thing because it doesn't happen often. In Legacy, a lot of games are determined by 1 small error late in a game when both players have been making optimal or close to optimal plays the whole game. I've seen it many times before, whereas in Modern, games rarely go to time. I will admit it's less so after Miracles got Top banned, but I still believe it to be so.
*There's a reason I have rarely beaten Burn on the play, but nearly always on the draw... (part of it is wrongfully ignoring Burn in the meta)
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)Honestly we would need at least fifty cases to produce anything meaningful for a given matchup. For instance, play or draw may matter a lot for GB Tron vs Affinity but be meaningless in a matchup between Grixis Shadow and Abzan Midrange.
Personally I'd want at least 100 pre-board games and 100 post-board. Mathematically this would lessen the effect of significant outliers like mulligans, hosers, and good old-fashioned punts.