Subject: Fixing magic Date: Thu, 09 Apr 98 14:38:21 -0500 From: bcowley@gdys.com To: >>1) No more single elimination in sanctioned events. Period. >>Replace all top 8 rounds with 5 rounds or more of Swiss play. In theory this is a good idea but in actuality it has too many drawbacks. If PTQ's could be run over a 2 day period this would be a viable option. Of course what happens when you have a PTQ that only attracts, say, 30 people? Already you have 6 rounds of swiss, now you are adding on 5 more. That is 11 rounds of swiss for 30 people. Are you making the assumption that no 2 people can play each other more than once in a tournament? You could run into some problems here as the person who starts 7-0 might have to face 4-3 or 3-4 records, and who is to say that those people are even left for him/her to face? Now if you add 5 rounds of swiss to a larger PTQ field, you are talking minimum 12 rounds which is likely to be 15 hours worth of playing. And what happens in Sealed Deck PTQ's? Without a top 8 you are making them totally dependent on the luck of getting a good deck. You take the last ounce of skill away from a sealed deck PTQ when you can no longer Rochester Draft or Booster Draft in a final 8. >>2) All sanctioned matches become best 3 of 5. Two unsideboarded, 3 >>with sideboard. I would like to go 3/5 but again time constraints are a big problem here. Also since when has sideboarding been a problem? I think the best players are those who are so thouroughly prepared that they know exactly what and how to sideboard after a game. Plus sideboarding is the difference between your average Magic Dojo Deck Copier and a good player who puts time into playtesting. Since sideboards aren't always posted on the Dojo, and certainly meta-game sideboards for a given person's particular area aren't, you could have MDDC packing Iron Stars in his sideboard instead of Chill. >>3) No more invitations to Pro Tours based on DCI rankings. Good Idea. Until a fair, consistent system can be implemented DCI rankings mean jack. >>4) Reform the PTQ system. (This is a long one). Good idea in theory. But it creates a situation where Tournament organizers will be competing for players and inevitably some will make money and others will get screwed. I think a better way to reform the PTQ system would be to give away slots based on the number of people who show up and participate in the tournament. I would break it down as follows: attendance # slots <80 1 80 - 125 2 125-199 3 200+ 4 simpy put: the more people who show up, the more slots. >>5) Make PTQs and large events pre-registration ONLY. Ummm, no. Again good in theory. This is what should be done. Every PTQ I have gone to has said that registration starts at 8, and ends at 10. Yet every moron with a credit card or a wrinkled 20 dollar bill who comes in between 10 and 11 is let in. What should happen is that at 9:50 the line is closed, and anyone not seated by 10:00 is shit out of luck. Just start the damn tournaments on time how hard can this be? >>6) ** Really controversial ** Ditch the PT points invite system. >>Make every PT a must-qualify event. Maybe the point system needs revising but I think that people who perform at the top level deserve to be invited back. With the new rule stating that qualified people can't play in qualifiers this will only help those people who are trying to qualify while at the same time rewarding those who do well at the PTs. If I was in charge I would do it the following way: finish at PT free invites 1 next 4 PT's 2-4 next 3 PT's 5-8 next 2 PT's 9-32 next 1 PT >>7) Make all PT qualifying formats the same as the PT. I sort of agree with this, after all how does qualifying for an extended format Pro Tour have anything to do with your ability to construct Mirage-Visions-Weatherlight decks (a la PT Chicago last year)? But I also agree with Pikula, there are no untested cards at a pro Tour. Personally, I enjoyed finding out what the "new" decks were at PT LA, what was winning, what was surprising, what Finkel was playing (hey we all want to know that). If you had a PT with a format that had just been played out for 3 months it would take a lot of the surprise out of it, a lot of the fun, and a lot of the skill devoted to those that prepare with new cards. if you think there is no testing going on how the hell do you explain Giant Strength and "Pants", and spinal graft showing up in so many decks? >>8) Ban all cheaters. Forever. No coming back. You're outta here. Great in theory. Very hard to enforce. Something has to be done about cheating but until Wizards actively puts their mind to it nothing is going to be done. >>9) No Level III+ judges in sanctioned events. There's too much >>temptation to abuse the authority/friendships with other high level >>judges. Either judge at a high level, or play at a high level. >>There shouldn't be any conflicts of interest. has this ever been a problem? >>10) A judge (or volunteer) at every table in contention for the last >>two rounds of a tournament. This is a very good idea. I would also keep all the contenders at tables near each other and have the head judge walk among every table constantly during the last 2 rounds. If you implemented this rule you could also implement the "NO DRAW" rule. intentional draws would not be allowed and with a judge watching it would be very hard to try and purposefully draw with a friend or teammate. >>11) Stalling is made a disqualification offense. Absolutely. hard to enforce but if you made stalling a disqualification offense i am sure there would be a lot fewer cases of stalling just because the THREAT would be there. >>12) Track all warnings given over a series of events. Lots of >>warnings= DQ. Agree. Given enough warnings, a suspension might be warranted. >>13) Officially sponsor a certain sleeve type. Require all >>competitors to use these sleeves. No problems here. >>14) Declare an official life counter. PEN AND PAPER. Great, get rid of those annoying Duelist life counters! I would also allow using a box of Hostess Zingers as life counters, assuming you use the cherry flavored ones. >>15) No desleeving unless a judge declares it. Ask a judge if you >>want your opponent to desleeve. yup. >>16) Volunteers (Level II trainees?) available to watch a match upon >>request. could be problematic if everyone gets paranoid and starts thinking there is something funny going on, but a good idea. >>17) Require all PT participants to turn in decks between rounds. What? Look if you think someone has stacked the deck, just shuffle the hell out of it. Anytime my opponent has sat in front of me and offered the deck without shuffling, I make like Lance Henriksen in Aliens and slice & dice the crap out of that deck. >>18) All tournaments "cuts" (from 250 to 64, for example) should >>divide along lines that don't involve tiebreakers. Great idea for PT's and Grand Prix (where you can always break down to a multiple of 8). However not really feasible for PTQ's where you need a final 8 to break down to. It would be nice to squeeze that 9th place person at 5-1-1 in but at some point you have to make a cut-off to a final 8. >>19) No more sealed deck PTQs. As much as I love sealed deck I sort of agree with you here. Anyone who thinks Tempest sealed is all about "skill" and "deck construction" can just pass me the carck pipe right now. I love the idea of duplicate sealed as mentioned earlier by someone, I think that would be the best way to do things. I also think a fairer way to run sealed would be to NEVER EVER allow a sealed deck with just one basic set. Straight mirage sealed was broken (oh i opened up 3 torches and a bunch of 3/3's good game). mirage-visions and mirage-visions-weatherlight was a much better test of skill. heck even 5th-visions was better than straight tempest. if the PTQ's for NY had been tempest-stronghold sealed i think you would have seen a lot of the better players rising to the top. >>20) No more large events with inadequate staff/supplies. yup. nice article even if i didn't agree with a lot of your points. -bruce cowley bcowley@gdys.com for comments, threats,