Subject: Changes to the game
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 98 15:56:22 -0700
From: ERIC_KIM@Non-HP-Corvallis-om3.om.hp.com
To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com

     Hello all,

     I would like to address some of the major issues I see involving Magic
     as a game and the DCI and WOTC hand in this efforts.  The ability for
     Magic to sustain itself as a game and 'sport', the players and people
     administering the game need to work together to make it grow.
     Unfortunately, I don't see the DCI and WOTC leading the way to make the
     game an 'intellectual and fair sport'.  Criticism of the DCI are not
     only warranted, but necessary for change to take place and the game to
     develop even further.  From what I have read, there are many people out
     there that believe that the method tournaments are run should be
     changed.  There is little agreement on what those changes should be.
     As a player, it is our job to discuss what needs to be changed (or
     kept) and why. It is up to WOTC and DCI to decide and think through
     what changes need to take place.  This is not the first time people
     have voiced their dissatisfaction.  Last year, there was a huge uproar
     when DCI wanted to replace classic restricted with extended until the
     DCI recanted and made a separate classification.  People notice things
     when they are pointed out to them or they are very salient.

As a player who enjoys the challenge of making a competitive deck, I find it
more difficult and less enthusiastic to play due to several of the reasons cited
by Eric Inman in his "Strange Days" message.  The game is involving more luck
rather than skill.  Changes need to take place to make sure that skill is a
larger factor than chance/luck in deciding who wins a duel of Magic.  If it is
not then WOTC's claim that Magic is an intellectual sport is not valid, and in
fact would be misleading.  A person who is playing in a tournament should be
rewarded for doing well for their skill not luck. I realize that it is not
always possible to separate or distinguish between the two, but matches should
structured such that a person who wins a match should more often reflect their
skill and not luck.  One of the largest luck factors that players complain about
is being mana screwed.  This will happen no matter how well constructed the deck
is.  A tournament should be structured to reduce the odds that you lose due to
luck than skill.  More games per match will do this (law of large numbers), but
has the problem of extending duration of the match (a tradeoff).  Generally
speaking, it would seem that if your matches are taking enough time, then luck
hasn't been that much of an influence and your match has reached a stable state
of play, and you will probably only play 2/3 (win) or 2/4 (draw).  I can't think
of any other way to increase the variance due to skill and decrease the variance
due to luck.  If luck becomes a large factor in a match win, and hence DCI
ratings, the ratings will not be stable and won't represent anything meaningful.
Unfortunately, winning through skill takes time, practice and patience.  Some
people don't have the time or temperament to learn the game.  Introducing luck
into the game is the easy path.  More importantly (for WOTC), it sells cards.


The DCI should require each player to keep track of their life at major events.
This will make it easier for a judge to make a judgment on 'who is telling the
truth'.  Questions about the play of events can be backtracked easier (checking
the graveyard). Without this method of keeping track, it the judgment becomes a
matter of "who do you believe" or "who can be more persuasive".  These are not
skills that *tournament* Magic is suppose to involve.  With a lot of money
involved, better records should be kept.  Greed can blur the judgment of
honorable players in a 'duel'.

This brings me back to the issue of cheating.  What should be done with people
who cheat?  How can we be more active in catching cheaters?  What observable
behavior constitutes stalling?  Without doing something to catch cheaters, then
the whole game will degenerate.  These are issues that need to be resolved and
addressed.  Whatever policy is derived, the punishment should fit the crime
(look at the Nathan Russel fiasco), the infractions should be documented (to
avoid repeat offenders), identification of the infraction should require as
little judgment on the judge as possible (to avoid making false positives and
false negatives) and they should all be enforceable.

Should invitations to pro-tours be based on DCI rankings?  Before answering that
question, we should ask what does the ranking represent and how accurate does
that number represent?  From my own experience and observations, the ranking is
suppose to represent ones skill at Magic and it doesn't represent it that well.
The Elo system works better for Chess than Magic because chess, players only
play people who have similar ranking, you can only move 200 points per year, and
the k-value is smaller at higher rankings--thus making the ranking more stable.
One cannot argue that since there is no evidence, that the assumption (ranking
does represent ones skill) is true.  This is arguing from ignorance.

Another problem with Magic is that the rulings (and card wording) need to be
clear and simple.  The on-line rule book is 80+ pages long.  The errata is much
longer.  Try explaining to a new player that an effect is controlled by the
active player--not the owner of the spell or permanent creating the effect.  For
example, the active player, controls the bottomless pit, cursed rack, or anvil
of bogarden (making mangara's blessing useless).  How about explaining what
timestamping is and when it applies/doesn't apply.  How many times has the
errata on Fork and Eater of the Dead been changed?  These rules and
inconsistencies make it difficult for new players to learn the game and become
frustrated when a judge tries to explain the ruling to them.  To the new player,
it makes it appear that there are 'secret rules'.


The DCI and WOTC need to identify their objectives and evaluate their behavior
and results with respect to those objectives (perhaps they have--they just
aren't what we assume they are). WOTC and the DCI need to think through their
actions and decisions before implementing.  Perhaps they ought to do a little
more research (they are leaving that up to Catherine Nicoloff--not an employee
of WOTC).  Unfortunately, I would be very skeptical of their press releases and
personal responses back to particular complaints (I am still waiting back on
several I sent a few months ago, and I am not satisfied with the response the
provided that explains why more towns didn't have a Stronghold pre-release and a
variety of others).  In addition, I am have seen little evidence that people at
WOTC and the DCI think through their policies and actions.  First, the decision
to replace classic-restricted with extended didn't go over that well with the
public.  Second, from the reports I read, the judgment against Nathan Russel was
poorly thought out and not executed in a professional or methodological manner.
Third, I believe that fifth edition wasn't that well constructed.  Certainly,
there were good decisions made, but they are far more bad decisions and
justifications than warranted.  The Mahamoti and Dragon Whelp were too powerful
for their casting cost and thus removed (so by logical extension, the Shivan
isn't too powerful for its casting cost)?  Destroying creatures (Fissure) isn't
a red characteristic, so they created aftershock?  Regeneration isn't red
(uthden troll), but they left the brute in? They wanted diversity in their cards
so they left both the lost soul and bog wraith in?  I would go on, but I hope I
made my point.


Eric Kim
kime@darkwing.uoregon.edu