quote:

---

Originally posted by choco man:
This very recent? The byes were insane, 2 byes in a PTQ-type event meant seeing the same people week in week out top 8.

Not to mention, players scooping each other into points.

---

I think SCG announced their changes the same time as WoTC announced theirs by way of an Evan Erwin video.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Harmless:
You'd only get 1 base participation point for a GP if there were 8-15 players, which somehow I find unlikely. If there are more than 2,048 players, you'd actually get 72 participation points.

---

Now instead of having a 2009 total rating, I am a level 42 Battlemage. So much for me trying to spin magic as an 'intellectual sport' anymore, instead if I talk in mixed company I'll be that ultra-nerd.

I am one of those people whose time is occupied elsewhere, and I do not have an FNM in feasible driving distance. My competitive career is over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jtrade77:

Now instead of having a 2009 total rating, I am a level 42 Battlemage. I am one of those people whose time is occupied elsewhere, and I do not have an FNM in feasible driving distance. My competitive career is over.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by simbayu:
I like the changes. There are positives and negatives but the biggest positive in my opinion is more people will play magic more often which is great.

---

or let me rephrase, you are rewarded equally, for beating a 1500 or even 1420 player or beating at 2000 player.

where is the fun in that?

Really good players who play a lot
Mediocre players who play a lot
Bad players who play a lot
Really good players who rarely play
Mediocre players who rarely play
Bad players who rarely play

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
I think that is the point. If you aren't actually playing magic yet have a high rating, why? Who cares about the levels and all that BS, its just bragging rights.

---

Because I'm good at magic, live in a rural area, and have a job? I don't care about bragging rights, but I do care about being able to compete without turning Magic into another career. Don't have time for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
The system had flaws. Does the new one? We don't know yet for sure since we don't know exactly how byes and invites are awarded, just vaguely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jtrade77:
Because I'm good at magic, live in a rural area, and have a job? I don't care about bragging rights, but I do care about being able to compete without turning Magic into another career. Don't have time for that.[B]

---

It doesn't benefit you, but it benefits players who are good and [b]active since they no longer have to sit on their ratings. However, it does not help players who want to or have to sit on their rating, such as yourself.

I think that was a sacrifice DCI/WOTC was willing to make, even though you're not. Personally, I don't like how beating scrubs = beating pros. But this new system is not perfect, but the old system wasn't either.

quote:

---

Because I'm good at magic, live in a rural area, and have a job? I don't care about bragging rights, but I do care about being able to compete without turning Magic into another career. Don't have time for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jtrade77:
Because I'm good at magic, live in a rural area, and have a job? I don't care about bragging rights, but I do care about being able to compete without turning Magic into another career. Don't have time for that.

Flaws in the new system:
--If you don't have FNM close to you, you're screwed.
--If you live in a rural location, you're screwed.
--If you live in Europe where FNM isn't x3 because it isn't on Friday, lol
--Nothing is stopping a group of 8 people from running 3 tournaments a day, just to get points, no prizes. If these events actually happened and were blogged about or something, it's completely fair!
--If you live in a major US city where FNM hits 65+ people every Friday, and you play sanctioned magic twice more a week locally, congrats on your invite.

---

Yes, all of that is a pain...IF you were planning on getting a PT invite or GP byes based on your rating. I don't know you or what your rating was or anything like that but I would guess that for 99% of the Magic playing populace this change won't have any noticeable difference on whether they played at a Pro Tour or not.

As LSV's article pointed out, the people it really hurts are guys like Paul Cheon who had a high rating and had a job outside of Magic that limits his playing time. Does it stink that he won't be able to sit on his rating and get an invite to Worlds or a PT. For him, yes. But for the guy who just missed the cut off because Paul was above the cut off despite not having played in a tournament in however many months this is awesome.

is that fair?

maybe it is.

But all of us who consider ourselves decent players, who just lost our byes or invites, this sucks.

Does that mean the system sucks? -im not sure we can actually tell yet.

This system would probably be awesome for pokemon. Magic im not so sure about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CubFan81:
Yes, all of that is a pain...IF you were planning on getting a PT invite or GP byes based on your rating. I don't know you or what your rating was or anything like that but I would guess that for 99% of the Magic playing populace this change won't have any noticeable difference on whether they played at a Pro Tour or not.

As LSV's article pointed out, the people it really hurts are guys like Paul Cheon who had a high rating and had a job outside of Magic that limits his playing time. Does it stink that he won't be able to sit on his rating and get an invite to Worlds or a PT. For him, yes. But for the guy who just missed the cut off because Paul was above the cut off despite not having played in a tournament in however many months this is awesome.

---

His article is right on the money.

This also will help eliminate the situations where you have 7 people who want to draft and number 8 is "Sorry i'm not playing i have to protect my rating" or "I'll only play under someone elses DCI number"

A lot of the complaints here can be awnsered quite simply, as WotC aren't complete idiots (well not always anyway). Anything you see now in the PW points page is largely irrelevant, only competitive points and pro points will count for anything. And of course FNM points will lead to the FNM championship, but isn't it a good thing that championship will be played by people that play a boatload of FNM's?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MagixDK:
this will absolutely result in worse players attending nationals and getting byes.

is that fair?

maybe it is.

But all of us who consider ourselves decent players, who just lost our byes or invites, this sucks.

Does that mean the system sucks? -im not sure we can actually tell yet.

This system would probably be awesome for pokemon. Magic im not so sure about.

---

I disagree. What it means is that guys who think they are better than everyone else, but aren't good enough to play and maintain their rating, will no longer get a free pass. I've run into these "sit on their rating" guys and they're just not good players. If you aren't good enough to play on a regular basis and maintain a rating, you don't deserve invites or byes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:
I disagree. What it means is that guys who think they are better than everyone else, but aren't good enough to play and maintain their rating, will no longer get a free pass. I've run into these "sit on their rating" guys and they're just not good players. If you aren't good enough to play on a regular basis and maintain a rating, you don't deserve invites or byes.

I think that it is good for Magic to reward those who aren't afraid to play. For those who can't play a lot, you still have PTQs and once you get on the PT, you stay on there by doing well. Everyone has to play by the same system and earn their rewards by playing Magic. That is the way it should be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:
If you aren't good enough to play on a regular basis and maintain a rating, you don't deserve invites or byes.

---

with the previous system, this just wasn't possible. I'm pulling this from my rating and mine isn't even good enough any more

code:

---

11-05-2738642, Launch Party - Action: 2011-05-13	2	 
5	Paul M. Sheeter	Loss	 	1917
4	MAX BURNS	Win	 	1922
3	Sabastian Leisek	Win	 	1921
2	BRANDON BROOKS	Win	 	1919
1	AARON THOM	Win	 	1918
11-05-2706668, Prerelease - Action - US: 2011-05-07	5	 
4	GABRIEL RADA	Loss	 	1917

---

thats right, I went 4-1 and broke even.

code:

---

11-08-2966659, Magic - 2011-08-27: 2011-08-27		 
4	Chris M. Fox	Win	 	1928
3	Broghan Hart	Win	 	1922
2	David R. Meddish	Loss	 	1920
1	Stephan Zombik	Win	 	1931
11-08-2882214, Friday Night Magic - August 2011: 2011-08-26		 
3	Chris M. Fox	Win	 	1930

---

I go 3-1 and lose points.

Some of these players are easily as good as I am, but they have lower ratings from not doing well in a large event recently while I did well in a PTQ in march and have been losing rating every since then.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:

code:

---

11-05-2738642, Launch Party - Action: 2011-05-13	2	 
5	Paul M. Sheeter	Loss	 	1917
4	MAX BURNS	Win	 	1922
3	Sabastian Leisek	Win	 	1921
2	BRANDON BROOKS	Win	 	1919
1	AARON THOM	Win	 	1918
11-05-2706668, Prerelease - Action - US: 2011-05-07	5	 
4	GABRIEL RADA	Loss	 	1917

---

thats right, I went 4-1 and broke even.

code:

---

11-08-2966659, Magic - 2011-08-27: 2011-08-27		 
4	Chris M. Fox	Win	 	1928
3	Broghan Hart	Win	 	1922
2	David R. Meddish	Loss	 	1920
1	Stephan Zombik	Win	 	1931
11-08-2882214, Friday Night Magic - August 2011: 2011-08-26		 
3	Chris M. Fox	Win	 	1930

---

I go 3-1 and lose points.

Some of these players are easily as good as I am, but they have lower ratings from not doing well in a large event recently while I did well in a PTQ in march and have been losing rating every since then.

That loss at the launch party was a fluke though. I knew he had a phyrexian ingester and after I played around it and then baited it out, he played his second one! So lame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:

Thanks for proving my point. If you really were a 1900+ player, you wouldn't be crying about losing a few points. You did well at a PTQ and now you lose points by losing to people of the same skill level as you, who aren't 1900 players. That is what the ELO system is, it finds what your real skill level is the more you play. If you are losing points, your rating is overstated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:

If you are consistantly going 3-1 or 4-1 against lower rated players, then your rating is too high. Never lose? No, but you should be doing a lot better than that. If you do, your rating will go up. You've just shown that you gain points by going 5-1. If you are always playing people worse than you at Magic, 5 out of 6 should be easy to do.

---

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read here in quite awhile. I honestly can't tell if you're being really sarcastic, trolling, or truly asking him to do something impossible.

At my FNM, I can't ever go 4-1 or 5-1. I can't possibly get five wins out of four rounds. To do better than 3-1 means to NOT LOSE (go 4-0). Doing better doesn't mean I play a mysterious fifth round and win that.

Besides, 5/6 = 83%, while 4-1 = 80%. If you're calling him an overrated player who wins a mere 75-80% of the time, while a very good player should win 83+% of the time, then I'm not sure what else to say if that 3% means all the difference in the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by yakusoku:
This is the most ridiculous thing I've read here in quite awhile. I honestly can't tell if you're being really sarcastic, trolling, or truly asking him to do something impossible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:
It certainly isn't impossible. If you only get enough for 4 rounds, then it means going 3-1, 3-1, 4-0 over 3 weeks. 10-2=5-1, simple Math. So you are telling me it is impossible to win FNM once out of every 3 weeks when you are so much better than everyone else (~100-200 pts higher). That is exactly my point, if you can't do that, then you truely don't deserve your rating.

---

But, he didn't say that he wins 3/4 of his matches. He pulled data from two tournaments, where he went 3-1 and 4-1 and his rating didn't go up. I don't know where you're getting these other numbers.

Where did he say he's playing against people who are 100-200 points below him?