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).
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
No comments:
Post a Comment