I don't understand why wizards does a 2/3 match system for competitive events. This often comes down to the luck of the die roll determining who goes first.
A better alternative is to only play 2 games per match, each player going first once. Players receive 1 point for each game won, and one additional point for winning winning both games (3 points total for a 2-0). Draws would result in 0 points to De-incentivize stalling strategies.
This is a more "fair" system as it does not rely so much on luck to determine the outcome of the game (less of a gamble). Furthermore it would speed up match times since one less game would need to be played.
What are the obvious downsides to such a system and why has it not been tried out yet? I'm sure there are some obvious reasons that I am just overlooking
You forgot sideboarding, for one. (Which, in case you say it doesn't matter: imagine a world where Modern decks can't sideboard into Rest in Peace, Stony Silence or Leyline of Sanctity, and have to maindeck them.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
Luck is indeed the deciding factor for this. To lessen its impact, the more games are played the better. But that takes time, so three games has been established as the optimal number for matches. In high end tournaments, the last rounds are even played best-3-out-of-5.
In contrast to that, playing less games inceases the impact of luck. And while playing first gives an advantage, due to the other player getting to draw first, this discrepancy is pretty insignificant. I vaguely remember, that a study by wizards a few years ago has shown, that this dispcrepancy amounts only to a few percent of more games won at most. But if the player does win, than the other player gets to choose to play or draw, so it pretty much already is as you want it to be. Otoh, if the player loses, he gets to decide again, but the other player already has won a game, so it's basically the same again, unless you want to give that player that tiny advantage on top of already having won a game and only needing one more.
Furthermore, playing a draw is better than having lost, and the player's score should reflect this, in my opinion.
Another point is, that most people play to play. Winning is the goal, yes, but only one person can win. The number of rounds is predetermined by the number of participants, so overall there would be less games. But what is the advantage in needing 1-2 hours less by robbing many players of several chances to play? The time saved is not enough for another tournament.
It's actually not "two out of three" or "best of three". It's actually "first to two". Ignoring time limits on rounds (and in fact, some matches don't have time limits), you could conceivably have a match that goes draw, draw, P1 wins, and the match wouldn't be over yet.
And while playing first gives an advantage, due to the other player getting to draw first, this discrepancy is pretty insignificant. I vaguely remember, that a study by wizards a few years ago has shown, that this dispcrepancy amounts only to a few percent of more games won at most.
Sadly, that study was done a long time ago. Since then, the advantage gained from playing has increased significantly due to the power level of proactive cards increasing dis-proportionally to the power level of reactive cards.
Maybe this will change in the near future but citing this study is not much help as the game has changed quite a bit
I think a 2-game match could still work if both players could have a look at each others deck lists and sideboards, before game 1.
It would remove the surprise element from game 1, but not entirely as no player would know in advance which cards were sideboarded in and with ones were not, much like what happens in games 2 and 3 in a best out of 3 match (or first to 2 in a 3 game match).
Experienced players will expect certain cards to be sideboard in for certain matchups.
Affinity players know to expect Stony Silence when facing a deck with white, for example. And playing Game 1 with sideboards would be tantamount to saying "Affinity is a dead deck."
How is that any different from playing games 2 and 3 with sideboards?
Because affinity now has to win two games with sideboard as opposed to having the easier win game one without sideboard and then having to get lucky once post board. Though that's a fair bit of assumptions. Also it could hurt decks a lot by giving opponent's knowledge of what you do or don't have, in the example if you see the opponent doesn't have stony silence in the 75 you don't have to sideboard expecting it.
If affinity would be harmed, I'm sure there would be other decks that would favored. I don't see why affinity has to be protected, because that obviously means others decks are being harmed against it with the current format.
Besides, luck and surprise factors are not exactly the elements you want in big events. If those can be minimized in some way, the more skilled players will come out on top more frequently.
I don't understand why wizards does a 2/3 match system for competitive events. This often comes down to the luck of the die roll determining who goes first.
The person on the play in game 1 should be specified in the pairings, just like it is in chess tournaments. MTG already uses the Swiss system so this would hardly be a difficult change.
If affinity would be harmed, I'm sure there would be other decks that would favored. I don't see why affinity has to be protected, because that obviously means others decks are being harmed against it with the current format.
I brought up Affinity as an example, not as an absolute reason against. Almost every deck has That One Card(tm) they hate seeing on the other side of the table. Sure, it can be played around, but if you see the opponents sideboard you know to expect it or not - it will hugely affect your decisions.
Besides, luck and surprise factors are not exactly the elements you want in big events. If those can be minimized in some way, the more skilled players will come out on top more frequently.
Surprise factors should absolutely be maintained - it's part of how off-meta decks can be successful.
Back when mtg goldfish was allowed to do data mining (boo wizards), it was shown that at least in draft the average format was like 50.5% favoring player 1, with plenty of formats favoring player 2.
The only thing I would change is in the top 8 or maybe just the top 4 of an event they should do a best of 5 instead of best of 3.
For the most part best of 3 is the best system for tournaments with time limits.
I have never liked sideboards. I would love to see the Hearthstone model adopted: bring multiple decks (3 or 5); when you lose a game, select a different deck; lose the match when you're out of decks.
I have never liked sideboards. I would love to see the Hearthstone model adopted: bring multiple decks (3 or 5); when you lose a game, select a different deck; lose the match when you're out of decks.
If you thought cards and decks are expensive now, wait until you're supposed to have at least 2 decks to be competitive.
I don't understand why wizards does a 2/3 match system for competitive events. This often comes down to the luck of the die roll determining who goes first.
Do you have proof that who goes first wins more?
You're not the first person to say something like this. But like every other thread that has the same topic, there is no actual statistical proof that it is significant. When the game started out (when going first also meant drawiong), sure. But wizards has tweaked the going first/mulligan rules over the years to address that problem.
I'm failing to see how the 2 game system is supposed to work with the claim that the person going first wins. What is stopping the vast majority of matches from ending 1-1?
I'm failing to see how the 2 game system is supposed to work with the claim that the person going first wins. What is stopping the vast majority of matches from ending 1-1?
Nothing, in fact that is the expected result of a majority of games given the OP's stance(in theory the person who goes first should always win, always resulting in a match score of 1-1). They even provided their change to the point system.
A better alternative is to only play 2 games per match, each player going first once. Players receive 1 point for each game won, and one additional point for winning winning both games (3 points total for a 2-0). Draws would result in 0 points to De-incentivize stalling strategies.
Of course this is awful because it doesn't discourage players from drawing games out unless they had a real chance to win, what it really does is encourages aggro players to scoop early(game 1) against control so they have a higher chance of playing out the entire next game. It also leads to problems of many players having similar scores as it is possible for each round to end with EVERYONE still having the same record([can you imagine a 9 round tournament where everyone ends the day with 9 points?{which should happen if the OP is right about going first}]not really likely but way worse than the current system).
I have never liked sideboards. I would love to see the Hearthstone model adopted: bring multiple decks (3 or 5); when you lose a game, select a different deck; lose the match when you're out of decks.
If you thought cards and decks are expensive now, wait until you're supposed to have at least 2 decks to be competitive.
It's easy to think that, but in practice that would not really be the case. 1st) The maximum investment that the community can spend on the game each release cycle is the maximum, regardless of the rules for competitive (or casual) deck building. 2nd) Part of how multiple decks would work is similar to how team constructed works: the "no more than 4x" card limit applies to all decks that you bring. From a supply/demand perspective, that means a much more varied list of cards is in demand. Because the community literally can't spend any more than it already is, the value of powerful cards normalize on the secondary market, which is to say: the most powerful cards in the current way of doing things drop in value, while other powerful cards utilized by different strategies increase in value.
This is further amplified by the fact that decks would be more streamlined to support their strategies, rather than being hobbled by 10% of their card slots being held in reserve for "answers" that rotate in from the sideboard, not to mention that decks would actually be 60 cards, rather than the current 60+15. In non-rotating formats especially, you would see the value of sideboard-only cards drop significantly (like Blood Moon). Prices for cards that are main-decked for some strategies, but also used in the sideboards of other strategies (like Path to Exile), would probably stay about the same as they are now, or maybe even drop a little.
No, the main problem with multiple decks vs. sideboarding has nothing to do with money, it would be the fact that multiple decks doesn't work for limited, so WotC would have to support two rulesets, which is theoretically more difficult for newer players. My argument against that is, by the time a player is competing at a level that requires meaningful sideboarding...they aren't new players anymore, or if they are, obviously don't need the hand-holding.
It's easy to think that, but in practice that would not really be the case. 1st) The maximum investment that the community can spend on the game each release cycle is the maximum, regardless of the rules for competitive (or casual) deck building. 2nd) Part of how multiple decks would work is similar to how team constructed works: the "no more than 4x" card limit applies to all decks that you bring. From a supply/demand perspective, that means a much more varied list of cards is in demand. Because the community literally can't spend any more than it already is, the value of powerful cards normalize on the secondary market, which is to say: the most powerful cards in the current way of doing things drop in value, while other powerful cards utilized by different strategies increase in value.
I don't know how community spending factors into this. I certainly don't spend money from a communal pool. What I do know that, to break into a given format now, I'd need to buy 75 cards if I don't have an established collection. If I try to break into a format under your idea, I'd need to buy 180 cards. Market forces alone certainly don't allow you to claim that the 180 card format is somehow cheaper even though certain cards would take a price hit, so I want to know how your comment is relevant to my situation, as an individual.
It's easy to think that, but in practice that would not really be the case. 1st) The maximum investment that the community can spend on the game each release cycle is the maximum, regardless of the rules for competitive (or casual) deck building. 2nd) Part of how multiple decks would work is similar to how team constructed works: the "no more than 4x" card limit applies to all decks that you bring. From a supply/demand perspective, that means a much more varied list of cards is in demand. Because the community literally can't spend any more than it already is, the value of powerful cards normalize on the secondary market, which is to say: the most powerful cards in the current way of doing things drop in value, while other powerful cards utilized by different strategies increase in value.
I don't know how community spending factors into this. I certainly don't spend money from a communal pool.
The money you can spend on MtG is limited in some fashion: either you can afford to buy all the cards (so you're limited by available product) or you can't (so you're limited by your finances). The same goes for everyone else, and the total of all that spending power determines the baseline value of in-demand cards. If production doesn't go up, but a wider variety of cards are in-demand, then the value of individual cards goes down.
What I do know that, to break into a given format now, I'd need to buy 75 cards if I don't have an established collection. If I try to break into a format under your idea, I'd need to buy 180 cards. Market forces alone certainly don't allow you to claim that the 180 card format is somehow cheaper even though certain cards would take a price hit, so I want to know how your comment is relevant to my situation, as an individual.
Obviously that's going to depend a lot on your situation. Are you a new player looking to get into Standard or an existing player trying to get into a bigger format? WotC's concern is for new players getting into Standard, in order to replace older players who are dropping out of the game. Someone transitioning to Modern or another eternal format is effectively dropping out of the game in their eyes, because that player's money is now going to the secondary market rather than to them.
Someone "breaking into" competitive Standard spends about $400, and then because of the rotating format continues to spends another $200-$300 per set. That number wouldn't really change...what would change is the average price per card.
It's easy to think that, but in practice that would not really be the case. 1st) The maximum investment that the community can spend on the game each release cycle is the maximum, regardless of the rules for competitive (or casual) deck building. 2nd) Part of how multiple decks would work is similar to how team constructed works: the "no more than 4x" card limit applies to all decks that you bring. From a supply/demand perspective, that means a much more varied list of cards is in demand. Because the community literally can't spend any more than it already is, the value of powerful cards normalize on the secondary market, which is to say: the most powerful cards in the current way of doing things drop in value, while other powerful cards utilized by different strategies increase in value.
I don't know how community spending factors into this. I certainly don't spend money from a communal pool.
The money you can spend on MtG is limited in some fashion: either you can afford to buy all the cards (so you're limited by available product) or you can't (so you're limited by your finances). The same goes for everyone else, and the total of all that spending power determines the baseline value of in-demand cards. If production doesn't go up, but a wider variety of cards are in-demand, then the value of individual cards goes down.
What I do know that, to break into a given format now, I'd need to buy 75 cards if I don't have an established collection. If I try to break into a format under your idea, I'd need to buy 180 cards. Market forces alone certainly don't allow you to claim that the 180 card format is somehow cheaper even though certain cards would take a price hit, so I want to know how your comment is relevant to my situation, as an individual.
Obviously that's going to depend a lot on your situation. Are you a new player looking to get into Standard or an existing player trying to get into a bigger format? WotC's concern is for new players getting into Standard, in order to replace older players who are dropping out of the game. Someone transitioning to Modern or another eternal format is effectively dropping out of the game in their eyes, because that player's money is now going to the secondary market rather than to them.
Someone "breaking into" competitive Standard spends about $400, and then because of the rotating format continues to spends another $200-$300 per set. That number wouldn't really change...what would change is the average price per card.
You're right, the average price would skyrocket because now there's 3x the demand for every good card...
A better alternative is to only play 2 games per match, each player going first once. Players receive 1 point for each game won, and one additional point for winning winning both games (3 points total for a 2-0). Draws would result in 0 points to De-incentivize stalling strategies.
This is a more "fair" system as it does not rely so much on luck to determine the outcome of the game (less of a gamble). Furthermore it would speed up match times since one less game would need to be played.
What are the obvious downsides to such a system and why has it not been tried out yet? I'm sure there are some obvious reasons that I am just overlooking
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
In contrast to that, playing less games inceases the impact of luck. And while playing first gives an advantage, due to the other player getting to draw first, this discrepancy is pretty insignificant. I vaguely remember, that a study by wizards a few years ago has shown, that this dispcrepancy amounts only to a few percent of more games won at most. But if the player does win, than the other player gets to choose to play or draw, so it pretty much already is as you want it to be. Otoh, if the player loses, he gets to decide again, but the other player already has won a game, so it's basically the same again, unless you want to give that player that tiny advantage on top of already having won a game and only needing one more.
Furthermore, playing a draw is better than having lost, and the player's score should reflect this, in my opinion.
Another point is, that most people play to play. Winning is the goal, yes, but only one person can win. The number of rounds is predetermined by the number of participants, so overall there would be less games. But what is the advantage in needing 1-2 hours less by robbing many players of several chances to play? The time saved is not enough for another tournament.
Edit:
And sideboarding.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Sadly, that study was done a long time ago. Since then, the advantage gained from playing has increased significantly due to the power level of proactive cards increasing dis-proportionally to the power level of reactive cards.
Maybe this will change in the near future but citing this study is not much help as the game has changed quite a bit
It would remove the surprise element from game 1, but not entirely as no player would know in advance which cards were sideboarded in and with ones were not, much like what happens in games 2 and 3 in a best out of 3 match (or first to 2 in a 3 game match).
Affinity players know to expect Stony Silence when facing a deck with white, for example. And playing Game 1 with sideboards would be tantamount to saying "Affinity is a dead deck."
Besides, luck and surprise factors are not exactly the elements you want in big events. If those can be minimized in some way, the more skilled players will come out on top more frequently.
The person on the play in game 1 should be specified in the pairings, just like it is in chess tournaments. MTG already uses the Swiss system so this would hardly be a difficult change.
I brought up Affinity as an example, not as an absolute reason against. Almost every deck has That One Card(tm) they hate seeing on the other side of the table. Sure, it can be played around, but if you see the opponents sideboard you know to expect it or not - it will hugely affect your decisions.
Surprise factors should absolutely be maintained - it's part of how off-meta decks can be successful.
How this works in constructed I do not know.
My CubeCobra (draft 20 card packs, 2 packs.)
430, Peasant, Very Unpowered
Why you should take your hybrids out of your gold section
Manamath Article
For the most part best of 3 is the best system for tournaments with time limits.
If you thought cards and decks are expensive now, wait until you're supposed to have at least 2 decks to be competitive.
Do you have proof that who goes first wins more?
You're not the first person to say something like this. But like every other thread that has the same topic, there is no actual statistical proof that it is significant. When the game started out (when going first also meant drawiong), sure. But wizards has tweaked the going first/mulligan rules over the years to address that problem.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
Of course this is awful because it doesn't discourage players from drawing games out unless they had a real chance to win, what it really does is encourages aggro players to scoop early(game 1) against control so they have a higher chance of playing out the entire next game. It also leads to problems of many players having similar scores as it is possible for each round to end with EVERYONE still having the same record([can you imagine a 9 round tournament where everyone ends the day with 9 points?{which should happen if the OP is right about going first}]not really likely but way worse than the current system).
This is further amplified by the fact that decks would be more streamlined to support their strategies, rather than being hobbled by 10% of their card slots being held in reserve for "answers" that rotate in from the sideboard, not to mention that decks would actually be 60 cards, rather than the current 60+15. In non-rotating formats especially, you would see the value of sideboard-only cards drop significantly (like Blood Moon). Prices for cards that are main-decked for some strategies, but also used in the sideboards of other strategies (like Path to Exile), would probably stay about the same as they are now, or maybe even drop a little.
No, the main problem with multiple decks vs. sideboarding has nothing to do with money, it would be the fact that multiple decks doesn't work for limited, so WotC would have to support two rulesets, which is theoretically more difficult for newer players. My argument against that is, by the time a player is competing at a level that requires meaningful sideboarding...they aren't new players anymore, or if they are, obviously don't need the hand-holding.
I don't know how community spending factors into this. I certainly don't spend money from a communal pool. What I do know that, to break into a given format now, I'd need to buy 75 cards if I don't have an established collection. If I try to break into a format under your idea, I'd need to buy 180 cards. Market forces alone certainly don't allow you to claim that the 180 card format is somehow cheaper even though certain cards would take a price hit, so I want to know how your comment is relevant to my situation, as an individual.
Obviously that's going to depend a lot on your situation. Are you a new player looking to get into Standard or an existing player trying to get into a bigger format? WotC's concern is for new players getting into Standard, in order to replace older players who are dropping out of the game. Someone transitioning to Modern or another eternal format is effectively dropping out of the game in their eyes, because that player's money is now going to the secondary market rather than to them.
Someone "breaking into" competitive Standard spends about $400, and then because of the rotating format continues to spends another $200-$300 per set. That number wouldn't really change...what would change is the average price per card.
You're right, the average price would skyrocket because now there's 3x the demand for every good card...
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks