Best of One: My Thoughts

This is a companion piece (but not necessarily a rebuttal) to the post here. A lot of my opinions are reflected in this piece by SaffronOlive, and expressed better than I can. I will cover some more deep thinking or nuanced points that I haven't seen or heard mentioned yet.

What is Winning?

A fun question I like to pose to people sometimes is "What is the purpose of a Magic tournament?" There are prizes to be won and invites to be handed out, but these exist outside of the game and tournament structure for the most part. No player can reach a winning percentage high enough to guarantee victory, so it isn't a very accurate measure of skill. The only true purpose of a Magic tournament is somewhat obvious and reductive, though I find it fascinating to think about:

The purpose of a Magic tournament is to determine the winner of the tournament.

Similarly, the purpose of a match is to determine the winner of the match. The purpose of the game is to determine the winner of the game. Much of the way we do things in competitive Magic is because that is the way it has always been done. I find it fun to think about possible alternatives, and with MTGA the Best of One Match has actually been put into practice.

Ninety-seven Percent

WotC claims 97% of games on MTGA are played best of one. This does not surprise me. I'd image a similar number could be stated for paper MTG if you could somehow obtain the data. If there are ten million MTG players and only ~100,000 competitive players, you can see how that might be so. People playing on their kitchen table aren't trying to do anything more than find out who wins the game. If they play more than one game, they don't have much reason to combine them into matches. Sideboards are more of a hassle and can be seen as unsporting. So to me the 97% number makes sense.

Skin in the Game

The shift in thinking happens once something is on the line. Playing for a prize or reward that is only available to the winner creates a structure outside of the game being played. I'll call this the "event structure". Unlike a tournament which is trying to determine a winner, the MTGA event structure is trying to allocate rewards.

I tried to ballpark what I think my lifetime percentages of games played where there was something on the line. I'm guessing something around 50% of games. I've probably played close to a thousand sanctioned events with some type of prize on the line. I've also done several hundred unsanctioned team drafts with cards, packs, cash, or a combination of all three on the line. On the other hand, I spent many years as a casual player while in middle school and high school. Even the tournaments we played were the purest of the form: they were only to determine a winner. No prizes. I've also spent many hundreds of hours playtesting either in real life or online with MTGO or Magic Workstation. I've even played quite a bit of casual constructed on MTGO before the 2-man queues were available, or just for fun. So I feel like 50% is accurate representation (though the number of games with nothing on the line isn't going to be increasing as much as those with something on the line going forward). 

Who Benefits?

The math is pretty simple: if your game win percentage is greater than 50%, you will have a higher match win percentage by playing best of three. Conversely, a winning percentage below 50% will result in an overall lower match win percentage in best of three. The further from 50% your game win percentage is the larger difference you will see. My paper match win percentage is around 64%, which is a 60% game win percentage. Given the skill gap in sideboarding, the percentage difference might be greater.

 On MTGA, daily and weekly win rewards are tied to games, so there is no incentive to play best of three to achieve these rewards any quicker if you are a winning player. The best of three modes require the harder to obtain gem currency and don't offer any substantial change in prizes. Most people are going to choose best of one without a significant outside factor. Having the rewards be focused for best of one makes a lot of sense. When you most want the rewards while building collection, you might not have the cards to be prepared to play best of three (or even competitive tier decks).

Breaking with Precedents, and Setting New Ones

For over twenty-five years, Magic matches have been best of three for competitive play. To time the announcement of a ten million dollar Magic Pro League on MTGA with a focus on best of one matches doesn't seem to make sense.A focus on best of one will make it harder for casual players to make the jump to competitive paper play (where Wizards makes most of their money in card sales).

There is also setting a new precedent with regards to the mulligan system. MTGA uses an algorithm when choosing your opening hand in a best of one match. It deals itself two hands and picks the one with mana ratio closest to the true percentage of the deck. If a player becomes accustomed to this, and move to true random opening hands will lead to more mulligans. A player with a weak understanding may get unnecessarily discouraged by their perceived bad luck. Or worse, they could conclude that there is more cheating going on at the higher levels. 

New Opportunities

I wrote much of the above sections thinking I supported a best of three focus. I've since done some more brainstorming and can see some cool new ways to take the game with best of one that I'd like to see tried out if that is the direction chosen. I still think overall I lean towards best of three, especially because the strategic depth of sideboards, but I'm also always hoping they try more new stuff.

One thing they could try is an increase in the number of rounds. Instead of a fifteen round best of three Grand Prix, you could have a thirty round best of one. The additional rounds would eliminate a need for a top eight playoff. It would also let you play against a larger number of opponents, increasing the social aspect.

There are many other ideas you could try out with a best of one setup. Having a lineup of decks that you play best of one with (as was tried in the player of the year playoff) is another possible wrinkle. 

The Takeaway

Magic is still Magic, regardless of the stakes or setup. I'm sure I'll still be playing regardless of what the focus will be. Even having the option to mix it up like this shows how much depth that is still being discovered in the game.

I'll be back in the New Year to talk about Standard for the next RPTQ. 

-Ty

Guest Blog: Examining Best of One

A few weeks ago, I mentioned some thoughts I had about single game matches in MTG Arena. Since then, WotC has revamped the rewards for many of the best of one modes leading to some debate about the nature of the game. After some breakdown in Twitter discourse, I invited my good friend José Pineda to write his perspective for a guest blog post. I had planned on doing some editing, but I ran out of time. I'll have my follow up posted later this week.

The Best Best Of

I have no idea how I heard about Magic: The Gathering. I am fairly certain that it was an ad of some sort because the first time I walked into a game shop to buy MTG products I had to find the store on my own, and I went alone, and I needed the guy at the register to help me. I had no friends that played. I made two decks to play with my then girlfriend. She and I played chess and scrabble regularly so I figured another game would be fun. Little did I know that I stumbled onto the most interesting game I have ever come across. Aside from many other issues, she and I would eventually break up, in part, due to my obsession with MTG. It did not take long for me to get the fever and have the drive to play magic at the highest competitive level I could muster. This is how I met Ty. I joined a message board for Texas magic players (RIP TMZ you were the worst). Ty and I would first have a friendship on TMZ and later we'd chat on Magic Online, so it feels quite appropriate that we would be here talking about another online magic offering: MTG Arena. Specifically, the current focus on single game matches over best of three matches. I like taking the scenic route when I am making a point so strap in.

In my heyday I played magic about 15-20 hours a week. I would test constructed with my team on Magic Workstation (the software that basically pirated MTG) and I would do in person drafts and testing every weekend on both Friday nights and Saturdays. I was 100% in the semi-pro camp of magic players. In those days it was quite irritating to have the DCI or Wizards make changes to the game that, in the view of most competitive magic players, was "dumbing down" the game. Every time the DCI changed a rule or banned a card or that time Wizards said they didn't want combos that could win prior to turn 4 or when pro tour coverage during Lorwyn talked so much about how the new focus on good creatures makes Pro magic look like kitchen table magic, and many other times I was with the hoard decrying "the end of magic!" Magic grinders have declared the death of magic so often that I am pretty sure we're in a Halloween film.

These days my life has changed. I no longer can devote 15-20 hours to this game I still very much love. I work longer hours, I have a wife, we have a daughter and being able to carve out 1 or 2 hours a day or even just finding any random 1-2 hours I have nothing going on is pretty difficult. My time as a competitive magic player is pretty much over. Then I heard about MTG Arena. It was supposed to use the free to play but buy extra stuff if you want it model. I personally really like this model of gaming. I am grinder and always have been so ya, I will grind out the free mode with pleasure. The issue with grinding like this is finding the time to do it, but MTG Arena has solved this problem for me by having single game matches that provide prize support and thus support for a grinder with little time such as myself. More often then not when I play MTG Arena it is literally one game at a time. My playing currently looks like this:

I might have 30 extra mins to spare before work. Play Arena
Take a coffee break for 20 min. Play an arena match
Go to lunch for an hour: Play an arena match (maybe a best of three if I am feeling it, but more likely best of ones so I can grind out more prizes in the same about of time)
Waiting for my wife not sure how long it will be: Join a draft. PAUSE THE DRAFT when my wife is back and ready for the whatever. Finish the draft later.

This is all while MTG Arena is still only on PC. If/When MTG Arena is a phone app I suspect I will play even more. Waiting in line? Start a draft! Taking the 20-30 min train ride to a soccer match, play a match. Bored at Jury duty but not sure exactly how long it will be? Play single game matches because they are so quick!

The time commitment of best of three matches is by far the biggest deterrent for me to play. I gave you all my personal history and experience specifically to demonstrate that I do love best of three magic. I am a competitive grinder at heart even if life isn't allowing me to commit to that right now. I like deck design the most of magic and sideboards are one of the most challenging part of deck design so I do truly love best of three magic. I miss going to GPs and grinding the PTQ scene (ya I have literally never played an RPTQ because I simply cannot commit the time to play a qualifier that does nothing but give me an invite to ANOTHER QUALIFIER! God the DCI really killed magic with that change...).

Best of one matches with a decent prize support are tailored made for me. They are also better for the casual player. Other than reducing the time commitment single game matches also reduce the number of cards needed to win stuff. When I first started playing Arena I looked up decks to see which ones would be easiest to assemble using my wild cards and small collection. I could not build a single 75 card deck. Not one. I could build a 60 card deck though. It is a real bummer for a semi-grinder to have to spend wildcards are some random SB cards that I use in one matchup. When I realized I couldn't build the SB for my deck I thought I was stuck until I earned more wilds. But then I realized that I could play constructed in a best of one format and suddenly I am grinding for gold so I can draft to earn gems and earn wilds and buy more packs etc. I can do all of this in small increments of time.

I remember any time I felt like drafting in the way way back days I would have to wait until the weekend or call up a bunch of folks and try to make a team draft happen. Then MTGO made it so that I could draft whenever, but I had to have at least 3-4 hours free in case I played all three rounds. The worst was if I lose in round 1 after like an hour and a half. I now have to find something else do to for the other 1.5 hours because joining another draft is not an option. Then draft leagues became a thing and suddenly I could draft and then play games when I had the chance. Again though I definitely need 45ish min free to complete the draft portion. Then if I wanted to play a match I had to be sure I had 50-60 minutes in case the match went long (I am a slow player so it always goes long).

Now? Now I have Arena. I can instantly start a draft whenever I want and pause it if I have to, and not having to wait for other players makes the draft go so fast. On the opposite side of this, I love being able to take as long as I want to make a pick. It is a great way for someone very familiar with magic, but not familiar with a set to learn the cards while drafting. I literally read and reread cards every pick until I have an understanding of the pool. Once the draft is done all I need to do is find 15-20 min to run a single game. Often the games are less than 15 min. It's freaking great!

From my perspective, there is a place for best of three competitive magic. If ever my life affords me the time to play competitively again I will certainly look for best of three magic. It is far superior to best of one with regard to skills testing. It takes away some of the variance and allows the skillful deck builder to improve their winning percentage by giving them sideboard games to tweak their build and also allows the more skillful player to take advantage of knowing what they are against. There is no doubt that best of three is the better format to determine who is the king of all these nerds. The thing is not everyone wants to be the king of the nerds, and even some that do (like me) simply don't have the time to do that. For people like me or other casual types, best of one is perfect.

This whole blog post was brought about when Ty and I discussed the stat recently released by the developers: 97% of games played on MTG arena are best of one matches. Ty talked about how the app design encourages best of one play. I definitely agree with this notion. The question at hand though is how much of an impact is app design making? It is certainly much easier to find best of one matches. It's the default offering after all. I can easily concede that the design has an impact. The thing is those that prefer best of three either a) are a small percentage or b) of those that prefer best of three a big portion of them don't prefer it enough to take make even the smallest of efforts to find best of three. That is pretty clear in the data. It becomes even more clear when you realize that the stat is talking about *games*. This means for any bests of three match the stats count at least two games. To have an even game count those playing best of one need to play twice as many *matches* as those playing best of three because again each best of three counts as two games at least. What this says to me is that the number of players satisfied with best of one is far greater than the number of player dissatisfied. In our discussion, Ty argued that since best of one players likely don't have a preference Arena designers should listen to the best of three players because they do have a preference and are expressing that preference. This is actually a common misconception about how customer satisfaction works. Having worked in customer service management for several years now it has become apparent to me that those that are having their preferences met by a company do not do anything to say thank you to that company or pressure them to maintain the status quo. They just keep using the products as always without comment. Those that are dissatisfied, however, are always very vocal. If companies guide themselves by their complaints they will certainly fail because complaints will never stop no matter what you do. It is the reason that "you can't please everybody" is a well known concept. It is important then that companies guide themselves by more than their complaints. In this case, I think Arena is making a smart business decision. They see the data that shows their user base is satisfied with their offering so they are just going to keep on trucking even in the face of criticism. If their user base begins to decrease then I am sure they will review comments to try to figure out why, but for now, they seem to be doing what they think will keep them in business. They aren't non-profit or a charity after all. They are a business and if we want to keep getting new cards and services from Wizard's of the coast then I think it is important to trust their business decisions. Definitely keep voicing your concerns because it will possibly guide them (in fact they decided not to change prize structure after the backlash), but don't expect that your comments alone will drive their decision making. Magic has existed for a quarter century not just as a game, but as a business. Lasting even a decade as business is hard. I mean who is still playing VS System? Is anyone still slanging Star Wars CCG cards? It seems to me Wizard's and Hasbro are interested in keeping their game alive. Part of that is providing offerings that best fit their users' needs.

I think it was really interesting to get that stat. I wish they offered more. It would be super interesting if they released all their data so players could comb throw it looking for things that interest them. We could, for example, look into the match choices of players after they have acquired all new player experience decks. I suspect a significant portion of the 97% comes from new players trying to accomplish the quests to get new decks. This I assume could possibly reduce that 97% figure and give a more accurate picture of what is happening. I would also be interested in looking for anyone that played at least one best of three match. Of that group, I would want to know the percentage of best of one play versus best of three play. Basically, I would want to answer the question "of those that are aware of best of three how often do they choose each format." We could even go deeper and review those that played constructed best of three. Constructed best of three was the hardest to find (though I don't think it was that hard). I would be interested in knowing what percentage of each format did any player that played best of three in constructed plays. I suspect that even those that found best of three still play best of one more often.

I feel that those specific reviews of the data would help us determine how much players care about best of three matches. Without that data analysis, it is hard to truly understand why that 97% figure exists. That said 97% is incredibly high, and with only that I figure would also feel pretty confident in supporting any format with that kind of track record.

I have no idea what Ty will say about this topic, but I am certain I will agree with much it. Best of three is the superior skills testing format. It may also be the more fun format, though honestly, I enjoy both them about the same. If I were deck designing more then maybe I would want to think about sideboards. What I am also certain of is that Wizard's decision to focus on best of one seems reasonable given the data they decided to share. Even in the face of the obvious design decisions that could inflate that stat, it still to me seems like a stat that is pretty hard to ignore. I personally have a great use for best of one. I am quite grateful for it, and I suspect I am not unique in this regard. I very literally cannot play magic otherwise.

Thanks for reading my first foray into blogging about MTG. I hope it was as interesting to read as it was to write.
-José



P.S. Ya I love reading my own writing or hearing myself talk. As a deck designer, I also like how best of one changes the deck design. Combo decks that have silver bullet weaknesses suddenly are more appealing. Often silver bullets are SB cards with a singular focus. Your opponents can either play those singular focus cards in the main and weaken themselves against everyone else, or just try to dodge your combo. Decks that rely on graveyards comes to mind and that UR phoenix deck is the first to come to mind of active decks in standard. That deck is not unbeatable without hate cards but it is tough. That said, I cannot see how it has a chance at all in games 2 and 3 against decks with some semblance of a game one plan and also graveyard hate in their SBs. To me, UR phoenix decks are simply unplayable in best of three, but much more appealing in best of one. I like that this quirk exists.

RPTQ Report

(See preparation here, here, and here)

The first thing to talk about is not playing Path to Exile.

In the testing I had done, it was becoming more and more uncommon that drawing a single Path wasn't as good as it used to be. This is a fundamentally different deck than GW Value Town, and you don't really have much interest in the game going long. Many games you have to just start attacking and hoping your opponent can't kill you. The decks where you absolutely need Path to beat just weren't common (Devoted Druid and Infect). Reflector Mage did a much better job at buying the time while still being a reasonable threat and a hit off Collected Company.

The second card to talk about is, once again, Aether Vial. There is a weird tension where Vial wants you to play more two drops, but cards like Rattlechains and Remorseful Cleric just weren't very good. However, once you cut Aether Vial you really want to play Rattlechains to give back the added playability on your opponent's turn. Playing Reflector Mage means you want some additional mana acceleration if possible (likely Birds of Paradise). That lead me to trying out the following list:

This was a modification of a brew I had with 4x Lingering Souls instead of the Reflector Mages. Lingering Souls is a powerful card but completely unnecessary. The Birds of Paradise made casting Collected Company easier. However, the biggest takeaway was how great Gavony Township was. This card was winning mirrors, setting up very hard to deal with board states against control, and letting Supreme Phantom block a Arclight Phoenix without any worries.

In the end, Collin and I decided that Vial was too important in the mirrors to cut entirely, but we were on board with Township and Reflector Mage. The list we played at the RPTQ looked like this:

The Deck

4 Noble Hierarch

4 Mausaleum Wanderer

2 Rattlechains

3 Selfless Spirit

4 Supreme Phantom

4 Drogskol Captain

4 Spell Queller

2 Phantasmal Image

3 Reflector Mage

1 Birds of Paradise

1 Kira, Great Glass-spinner

4 Collected Company

3 Aether vial 

2 Horizon Canopy

1 Gavony Township

4 Botanical Sanctum

2 Misty Rainforest

4 Flooded Strand

1 Cavern of Souls

2 Hallowed Fountain

1 Temple Garden

1 Breeding Pool

1 Island

1 Plains

1 Forest

Sideboard

2 Damping Sphere

4 Rest in Peace

4 Stony Silence

3 Unified Will

2 Knight of Autumn

I convinced Collin to play the Kira over the 4th Reflector Mage, and he convinced me to not play a Path over the one Birds of Paradise. Both cards were probably mistakes and should be 4th Mage and 4th Aether Vial. The 3rd Canopy was cut for the Cavern to help with Township since you are actually interested in getting to five mana now. The sideboard is the way it is because there just aren't very many cards you want to bring in or cut against a large portion of the metagame, and the times you do bring in cards you want them to be the best ones.

The Games

I went 1-2 drop. Collin was 4-0 but ended up 5-2 after losing round five and six. I did have some interesting spots in my three matches I'd like to share.

Round 1 against UW control:

Game 1 I mulligan to six on the draw and keep fetchland, Noble, Noble, 3x Company. With the scry of land on top this hand easily got there for the win. 

Game 2 I develop slowish but he doesn't have any planeswalkers and I'm able to hold up Unified Will pretty much the whole game. I end up attacking him down to 6 life but before damage he casts Settle the Wreckage. I have six mana and three cards in hand: Spell Queller, Unified Will, and Collected Company. I use my Aether Vial to put in Queller and counter the Settle. He's now at 5 life. On his turn he casts Supreme Verdict with three untapped mana. I have 43 cards left in my library and 8 of them will answer the Verdict if I hit off Collected Company. This is 71% to work. However, I could wait and just Company after Verdict to redevelop. This line is very bad against a Dispel because my Unified Will will no longer be available. Because of this, I decide to fire off the CoCo. He has the Dispel which I counter with Mausoleum Wanderer, but then do not find any card I need. I still have a window to draw some threats, but I draw additional lands and lose to a Teferi. 

Game 3 he mulligans to six. I lead with a dual land, and he plays basic plains. I play another land and he plays a second plains. Given that he is most likely missing lands, I deploy a 4/3 Knight of Autumn and he untaps and plays Island Search for Azcanta. This is awkard. He then Paths my Knight and my Spell Queller and 3x Unified Will aren't enough pressure to prevent him from running away with the game from the Search. It's possible I should have held up Spell Queller on turn three since I had a feeling he had the Search in his hand. I could have played Queller and the used Knight to kill the Search later on. I'm still not certain about this play.

0-1

Round 2 against Jund:

Not much to say here. He missed a Bob trigger one game, and I resolved a Company both games and easily won.

1-1

Round 3 against Enduring Ideal (!?)

Game 1 I lead with Noble Hierarch, he plays a Porphory Nodes. I decline to add to the board and the cards trade. He plays some scry lands including New Benalia. I Spell Queller a Suppresion Field just to get a threat on the board. I then have to Queller a Ghostly Prison, and then I must Queller the Runed Halo. I'm still not certain what he's playing. It looks like a RW Prison deck. I attack him down to 8 life and hold up Company instead of playing a Drogskol Captain. He plays a Ghostly Prison and I play Company but can't get enough power in play to kill him the next turn. I instead elect to protect myself from sweepers I haven't seen and put two Selfless Spirits into play. His next turn he plays Phyrexian Unlife and now I'm much further away from killing him. I manage an attack down to 4 life, but his follow up Form of the Dragon locks me out of the game. 

Game 2 he starts by suspending two Lotus Bloom. I have a turn three Kira that is answered by Porphory Nodes. I can kill the Nodes with Knight and play Mausoluem Wanderer, or try to hold up Unified Will with his two Lotus coming off suspend. I still hadn't seen Enduring Ideal so I messed this one up and didn't hold up Will. He resolved Ideal and put Overwhelming Splendor into play, and I was pretty much unable to win on the spot. A Dovescape and Form of the Dragon followed and I was done.

I think I could have won both games against Ideal though perhaps game two would have been tricky still. I think I got a bit unlucky against UW control but I was in good positions. Overall I'm still happy with the deck.

What's Next

Going forward I would play 4 Reflector Mage 4 Aether Vial and no Path to Exile. I'd also cut the Knight of Autumns from the sideboard. They really don't do enough for me. I'm not sure what the last two cards in the SB would be, maybe a Dispel and a Ceremonious Rejection. The fourth Unified Will is also an option.

As for Magic, I haven't been playing much outside of Arena anyway so I have no idea what I'll do. I'm qualified for the next (last) RPTQ and after that I'm not sure how much I'll be on the weekend grind. I do plan on attending some Grand Prix (Magic Fest) next year. I'll still play when I'm interested but I have no need to play when I'm not.

Thanks for reading,

Ty