Count the Online Tournies or Not? (Formerly the August Update Thread)

[Peter_Rotten]

This thread originally started about this topic:

This week I'm updating the DTBF for the Non-USA (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=268149&postcount=6) and the USA tournies (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=268152&postcount=7) of 33 or more players (must have T8 decklists posted) and just wanted to make sure that I have not missed any before completing the update.

So, have I missed any? Links are helpful.

I'm particularly looking for the August Japanese Ancient Memories Convention. It's probably #39 or 40.

But has morphed into a discussion about including Online Tournaments in the DTBF. Feel free to voice your opinion about that subject since the original topic is pretty closed.

[Peter_Rotten]

ROFL!

Um, hey dickhead! You forgot Gencon.

[Peter_Rotten]

ROFL!

Um, hey dickhead! You forgot Gencon.

Warned for flaming.

[Nihil Credo]

And you also forgot the Source tournament, duh.

Also, nice way to get the post count back into shape.

Other than that, there was at least one 40-player tournament yesterday in Piacenza. The full Top 8 and decklist should be available in a day or so.

[Peter_Rotten]

And you also forgot the Source tournament, duh.

But we don't include online tournies. Is that one Italian Summer (the one with the date as June/July/August) event an online one also?


Other than that, there was at least one 40-player tournament yesterday in Piacenza. The full Top 8 and decklist should be available in a day or so.
I guess that I'll wait until a few days till do the official update then.

[KillemallCFH]

Holy shit. Merfolk got 3 Top8s. I think I just came.

[Peter_Rotten]

Holy shit. Merfolk got 3 Top8s. I think I just came.

But we may have 13 tournies to count. It might not get the right % to hit DTW status. However, GoyfSligh will probably be a shoe-in :eek: .

[KillemallCFH]

Gah! I was so hopeful. It's okay, it'll get there next month :smile: .

[Brehn]

AMC lists are here (http://www.deckcheck.net/event.php?event=Ancient+Memory+Convention+39th).

MizziumVault got 7th :frown:

Edit: also, this (http://www.deckcheck.net/event.php?event=Trader-Liga+Legacy+August+2008).

[Hightower]

Like I wrote in the Merfolk thread, I made top 3 (out of 63 people) at the Legacy side event at Grand Prix Copenhagen, 24 Aug.

Too bad Wizards hosted the event, because it doesn't seem they have uploaded the decklists anywhere, and probably won't =(

I can post my Merfolk decklist, if it helps.. Peter_Rotten?

[Peter_Rotten]

AMC lists are here (http://www.deckcheck.net/event.php?event=Ancient+Memory+Convention+39th).

MizziumVault got 7th :frown:

God, that RG Beats deck is hilarious! It's like an updated Zilla Stompy. Check it out.

[Peter_Rotten]

Also, is the Trade-Liga event a German event? Italian? It is not immediately apparent to me.

[Hightower]

/ignored

Oh well..

[klaus]

But we don't include online tournies.

Just out of curiosity: Why is that?

[Jeremy]

Also, is the Trade-Liga event a German event? Italian? It is not immediately apparent to me.

Should be spanish or german

If you have link, I can tell you.

[diffy]

Also, is the Trade-Liga event a German event? Italian? It is not immediately apparent to me.

German - it's a fancy name for the Dülmen tournaments.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

But we don't include online tournies.

Welcome to the 21st century, dickhead. If you're not jacked in, you're not alive, man!

srsly. Online tournaments. You should count those.

[kabal]

srsly. Online tournaments. You should count those.

From UWb_LS: MWS Tourney "ViceChampion" (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=267420)



Conclusion:
Landstill is the perfect choice for online tournaments – „no time limit“= „no draws by timeout“. This fact alone makes it 20% stronger than irl.


While the 20% can be debated, but the fact that there is no time limit will allow certain decks to thrive.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Yeah, because there were no information-distorting factors at GenCon, for instance.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

No.

First of all, actual attendance is really effing hard to determine in an online tourney. How do you tell who was actually playing, and who never responded past the first round?

[Sanguine Voyeur]

33 people participate in a tourney, right as round one starts, three of them die in a fire. Tourney continues. Does it count for the metagame updates?

If yes, then your point in invalid.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Not really, because that happens much less frequently in real life tournaments, where people have to commit an entry fee for playing.

[Sanguine Voyeur]

You dodged the core question. If enough people register for a real life tournament to count, but not enough play even round one, does/should it count?

Either way, more then 33 people finished round one in the Source Tournament (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10337).

[Nihil Credo]

Meh. We count unsanctioned tournaments, Japanese kitchen-sink spellslinging, and side events where passersby join with Extended and T2 decks and judges don't know the format. I don't see why online tournaments shouldn't make the cut.

[emidln]

Why is no time limit relevant? There was nothing I could find in the T.O.'s handbook about mandatory time limits. I would actually prefer playing in physical tournaments that didn't have round time limits but instead aggressively enforced slow play rules. I know there are reasons for the businesses that conduct tournaments not implementing this, but there don't appear to be technical reasons (at least according to the rules of dci sanctioned magic) why this can't happen.

[Volt]

.

[Peter_Rotten]

I can post my Merfolk decklist, if it helps.. Peter_Rotten?

We need all 8 lists.

[Hightower]

Supposedly, there was a 60-person Legacy side event at Copenhagen, but I can't find results or deck-lists posted anywhere.

Yeah.. Both me and Van Phanel attended it... But since it was organized by Wizards (and it was "only" a side event), they probably swallowed the deklists after the event ended and the lists will never be uploaded to the internet =(

@Peter_Rotten - Thanks for the answer, but not possible I'm afraid

[Van Phanel]

Welcome to the 21st century, dickhead. If you're not jacked in, you're not alive, man!

srsly. Online tournaments. You should count those.

Absolutely.

That would also mean that Solidarity has three Top8s. (Please?)

[xsockmonkeyx]

Pretty sure we can trust the results from The Source Tourney. Unless we think those guys at The Source are kinda shady, or something. Also, we have tourney reports and good players so why the hell not?

[Bahamuth]

I'm pretty sure the level of play & decks is a seriously much higher than the average level you will see at an average tournament.

Also, Solidarity would be in.

[yawg07]

I find it sad that MizziumVault makes a Top 8 and then Time Vault gets banned :tongue:

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

You dodged the core question. If enough people register for a real life tournament to count, but not enough play even round one, does/should it count?

Yes, because the assumption is that no one would drop before the second round without grossly compelling reasons, if the entry cost them money.


Either way, more then 33 people finished round one in the Source Tournament (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10337).

But as a general rule? If MTGleague or whoever the hell has some random online tournament with 50 people, how do we know if we count it or not?

And if we cannot apply it as a general rule, you'll have a hell of a time with a rule that says "if we think it's a legit online tournament". That's exactly what the DTB system is trying to avoid.

No. This would be disaster.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Maybe there's a reluctance to count online tournaments because it tends to smash East Coast assumptions that other metagames look different because everyone just plays scrubby decks. There's no good excuse for losing to decks from a "scrubby" metagame online, however.

(Well, my excuse is that Nihil and Van Phanel are lucky n00bs who got lucky, but that's neither here nor there).

@Spatula: Then if it's based on the number of people that complete their first round? What's the excuse then?

[Peter_Rotten]

We currently have no plans of including online tournies. Too many worms may pop out of the can.

- How does the tourney handle disconnects?
- How relevant is a standard time limit for rounds?
- How do we know that Cheaty-Mac-Cheaterson doesn't have his big brother, Joe ProMagicPlayer watching over his shoulder to help him during the tourney?
- Does it matter if online tournies are not affected by card availability?
- Are the HackXor programs for MWS?
- Do we count only MWS and not Apprentice or both or vice versa?
- How are card rulings resolved?

And these are just some questions that pop off the top of my bald head.

And, BTW, thanks for the Elgin tangent. :cry:

[xsockmonkeyx]

Maybe there's a reluctance to count online tournaments because it tends to smash East Coast assumptions that other metagames look different because everyone just plays scrubby decks. There's no good excuse for losing to decks from a "scrubby" metagame online, however.

(Well, my excuse is that Nihil and Van Phanel are lucky n00bs who got lucky, but that's neither here nor there).

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk297/Blondie-Wan/SpockWin.jpg

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Is the point of collecting Top 8 info to find the most powerful decks in the metagame? Then card availability and outside advice from someone hanging over someone's shoulder, correcting their mistakes, shouldn't matter.

If you're dealing with a serious opponent, even if it's MWS, judge rulings can be solved by going to online sources. Disconnects simply require starting over, which shouldn't hurt probability in the long run.

How do we know that people rl aren't cheating if they haven't been deckchecked? At some point we have to rely on online pretendy fun time games not mattering that much to people.

Seriously. Counting large online tournaments, at least Source-run ones, is the best way to cut through the inter-metagame bullshit and see which decks are really the best. The benefits far outweigh the drawback of, "OMG Landstill is slightly worse irl because there's a real possibility of unintentional draws!"

[Peter_Rotten]

Another member cited the following similar reasons as to why we should not count them:


First, it has been proven that the shuffler algorithim for MWS was created for 40-card decks. This alone skews any results, even if equal for both players.

Second, there are no time limits. And even if they are self-enforced, not everyone can be assured to honor them. Or to not take advantage of them.

Third, there are glitches where you can both view your opponent's sideboard, and where you can register what appears as a format-legal deck that has mre than a 15-card sideboard.

Fourth, there is no judge. While most rulings can be handled easily, cheating, especially slow-play (if even using time limit) cannot.

Fifth, connectivity problems. Something that doesn't happen IRL, and can't be effectively or fairly regulated. Even with a ruling set in stone to what happens in case of one, it will always favor one player.

There are more I'm certain, but these alone cause me to discount almost any results from online tournaments not based on a completely individual basis.

The first and third reason seems particularly important.

[Brehn]

- How relevant is a standard time limit for rounds?

Not, I'd say. Maybe Landstill is a little bit better (in theory) with no time limit than it is with a time limit. So what? Landstill is also a little bit better in meta X than in meta Y.


- How do we know that Cheaty-Mac-Cheaterson doesn't have his big brother, Joe ProMagicPlayer watching over his shoulder to help him during the tourney?

Decks to beat, not Players to beat. If Joe ProMagicPlayers participates in a RL tournament, you don't complain either.


- Does it matter if online tournies are not affected by card availability?

I haven't seen any Imperial Painter Deck top8ing an online tournament yet. And there are enough budget decks in online tournaments.


- Are the HackXor programs for MWS?

I don't think so.


- Do we count only MWS and not Apprentice or both or vice versa?

Does anybody still play Apprentice?


- How are card rulings resolved?

How do you determine whether the judge of a RL tournament is competent? In a DTBF-relevant tournament I've participated in, I've almost gotten the Trinisphere + Shattering Spree-ruling wrong, had another player not intervened.



Is that one Italian Summer (the one with the date as June/July/August) event an online one also?
Yes.

[freakish777]

Quote:
- Are the HackXor programs for MWS?

I don't think so.

I wouldn't be so sure. It's possible to cheat in real life too, however the differences are that:

A) You can observe your opponent and maybe detect what they're doing.
B) If you get caught cheating in real life, you get booted from the DCI. Getting caught on MWS seems nigh impossible, and even if you are, you'll go from Magic-League to some other league, or whatever.
C) If you create a hack for MWS, you'd likely share it without fear of what would happen to you. If you cheat in real life you probably wouldn't tell anyone.

[Raider Bob]

The 2 Grinders for GenCon were 49 and 51 people on the 14th you should probably include those also.

[Peter_Rotten]

The 2 Grinders for GenCon were 49 and 51 people on the 14th you should probably include those also.

But we don't have the deck lists for them posted anywhere.

[Skeggi]

To simply answer the thread's question:

NO

The reasons you posted earlier are exactly why. Just to be sure I'll include a quote:


- How does the tourney handle disconnects?
- How relevant is a standard time limit for rounds?
- How do we know that Cheaty-Mac-Cheaterson doesn't have his big brother, Joe ProMagicPlayer watching over his shoulder to help him during the tourney?
- Does it matter if online tournies are not affected by card availability?
- Are the HackXor programs for MWS?
- Do we count only MWS and not Apprentice or both or vice versa?
- How are card rulings resolved?

I'll answer them too:

- The fact that there can be disconnects is enough not to include these tournaments for rating.
- Very.
- We don't.
- Yes, very. It's like allowing 100% proxies on a tournament.
- Don't know. There could be, but it's the least of the problems.
- Not relevant when not doing it.
- MWS manner, which apparently, is shitty.

[Brehn]

I wouldn't be so sure. It's possible to cheat in real life too, however the differences are that:

A) You can observe your opponent and maybe detect what they're doing.
B) If you get caught cheating in real life, you get booted from the DCI. Getting caught on MWS seems nigh impossible, and even if you are, you'll go from Magic-League to some other league, or whatever.
C) If you create a hack for MWS, you'd likely share it without fear of what would happen to you. If you cheat in real life you probably wouldn't tell anyone.

I think it's safe to say that online tournaments are not full of cheaters. I think it's also safe to say that cheating exists IRL. Which leads to: I think it's safe to say that any argument involving cheating isn't relevant to this discussion.

Also this:

Meh. We count unsanctioned tournaments, Japanese kitchen-sink spellslinging, and side events where passersby join with Extended and T2 decks and judges don't know the format. I don't see why online tournaments shouldn't make the cut.

[Skeggi]

Meh. We count unsanctioned tournaments, Japanese kitchen-sink spellslinging, and side events where passersby join with Extended and T2 decks and judges don't know the format. I don't see why online tournaments shouldn't make the cut.

Because I don't have problems with playing against Extended or T2, makes me more certain of a win anyway - I don't think Extended or T2 ever made top8 in a 33+ people tournament. And if they did, they're actually worth mentioning.

Judges not knowing the format is very different than every random player you play against not knowing the format nor the rules.

[Peter_Rotten]

Well, I think that the cheating argument MAY be relevant since it is MUCH easier to cheat on the net then in real life. Plus the repercussions for cheating in real life are more severe and less easily avoided. After caught cheating in real life, it's not like you can just change your face (user name) for the next tourney.

Cheating online can also come in the form of disconnects. Do people abuse this? Maybe. I have no definitive proof of this, but I could see a bad loser hitting "system: player lost" when the game seems to be out of his hands. And then he gets a "do-over."

[Atwa]

I think it's safe to say that online tournaments are not full of cheaters. I think it's also safe to say that cheating exists IRL. Which leads to: I think it's safe to say that any argument involving cheating isn't relevant to this discussion.



I have to agree here. And then again, why would anyone cheat in a Source Tournament? For the $60 in cards? If I would ever cheat, I'd do it in a tournament with a little more money at stake.

Besides, we all play Legacy because we simply like the format, it's not like we need to make a living out of it. I'd say the cheating objections shouldn't be considered too seriously.

It's not like we need to count all those Salvation tourneys, however I think the results from the Source tournament should be counted in.

[Skeggi]

I have to agree here. And then again, why would anyone cheat in a Source Tournament? For the $60 in cards? If I would ever cheat, I'd do it in a tournament with a little more money at stake.

The fact that you don't doesn't mean someone else doesn't. There are tons of people who cheat just because they want to win - even if there's nothing at stake.

[Ch@os]

No please not, these are no real tourneys.

[freakish777]

I think it's safe to say that online tournaments are not full of cheaters.

I accept this premise.


I think it's also safe to say that cheating exists IRL.

I accept this premise.


Which leads to: I think it's safe to say that any argument involving cheating isn't relevant to this discussion.

I reject your conclusion.

Also, I am left wondering how you came to it, after I pointed out the differences between cheating in real life and cheating online?

[Volt]

.

[marit]

It's probably too much to ask of the mods, but what about a seperate thing for online tournies, like PR just seperated American and European. I think it'd be cool to see how the online meta without time, or card restrictions, would differ from the real one.

Edit: Also, I don't think the timing thing is a problem, because if I remember correctly, the Top 8 of worlds isn't timed, which is probably one of the most competative times in magic. And as Emidln said, I don't think timing is explicitly stated as necessary in the rules.

[jazzykat]

Yes.

[ACME_Myst]

Another member cited the following similar reasons as to why we should not count them:



First, it has been proven that the shuffler algorithim for MWS was created for 40-card decks. This alone skews any results, even if equal for both players.

Second, there are no time limits. And even if they are self-enforced, not everyone can be assured to honor them. Or to not take advantage of them.

Third, there are glitches where you can both view your opponent's sideboard, and where you can register what appears as a format-legal deck that has mre than a 15-card sideboard.

Fourth, there is no judge. While most rulings can be handled easily, cheating, especially slow-play (if even using time limit) cannot.

Fifth, connectivity problems. Something that doesn't happen IRL, and can't be effectively or fairly regulated. Even with a ruling set in stone to what happens in case of one, it will always favor one player.

There are more I'm certain, but these alone cause me to discount almost any results from online tournaments not based on a completely individual basis.


The first and third reason seems particularly important.

The first reason is absolute bullshit. Randomization is randomization. Deck size doesn't matter, at all.

Second reason is somewhat bullshit. After cutoff, rounds are untimed at most tournaments. I don't see any reason why this would be a bad thing during the swiss.

Third reason is half bullshit. It shows up in the log if you look at your opponent's sideboard. The second thing I didn't check though.

Fourth reason doesn't work if you DO count tournaments with shit judges, like some side events at Extended / T2 tourneys.

Fifth reason I'm unsure about. A player can't simply close the window because that will say '<system> Player Lost', where if you get a disconnect, it says 'Session Lost', so that argument doesn't stand.


I'd say count online tournaments from reliable sources, which I would define as The Source tournaments and MTG Salvation tournaments. The first one is obvious, and to be fair, most players in the second one are from The Source as well.

[Brehn]

Also, I am left wondering how you came to it, after I pointed out the differences between cheating in real life and cheating online?

It's no logical conclusion, it's my opinion. Differences between cheating in real life and cheating online might exist. So what? That doesn't mean that online tournaments are full of cheaters. I think it's a safe assumption to say that online cheating doesn't falsify the results of online tournaments to a sufficient extent to falsify the impression of the metagame that the DTBF offers.

[Slag]

It seems that if you want to include online tournaments, and I don't really care one way or another, you would have to prove that the dynamics unique to online play (no time limit, not being across from your opponent, the inherent quirks of using a computer program) do not create an environment that is different than real-life magic. Otherwise, you could be getting perfectly viable information on a format different than legacy.

[Nihil Credo]

It seems the discussion lit up. Personally, I think the following could be acceptable arguments against the inclusion of online tournaments.
Card availability - Because Armageddon Stax online almost always features Ravages of War and Tabernacles (and possibly Moat), while offline those cards are far less common. Counter-argument: The DTBF forum measures performance (Top 8s), not metagame presence (field percentage). You are supposed to extrapolate from it what decks people are going to want to bring to future tournaments, not to take it as raw statistics on what is run in Hadley or Hassloch.
Early drops lowering the effective field size - Some players do end up not showing up at all, so while very large tournaments are safely in DTB range even after that, those with only 40 players or so might not. Counter-argument: Online tournaments, being forum-run, are fully documented, so it's easy to check that there are 33+ players still playing in round 2.
Time limits - Yes, it does change the power level of certain decks. Counter-argument: As emidln observed, time limits aren't actually a mandatory DCI rule. In fact, there are different Swiss time limits even within Wizards-run tournaments (IIRC, Pro Tour rounds last 60 minutes).The following, however, I don't consider relevant at all:
Cheating - I find this one funny, since I'd be pretty willing to bet that you're much more likely to be cheated out of a game on paper than on the computer.
Here's a list of cheats that can happen on MWS, but not in person:
Cheater secretly develops a hax to break MWS which he keeps to himself
Cheater disconnects, forcing a game restart (may or may not work depending on the tournament policies)Here's a list of cheats that can happen in real life, but not on MWS (or get much tougher, e.g. drawing extra cards because of the sound effect and chat log):
Cheater stalls to exploit the time limit
Cheater peeks at the opponent's cards while shuffling
Cheater peeks at the cards in his library
Cheater draws extra cards
Cheater stacks his library while shuffling
Cheater uses marked sleeves
Etc. etc. (insert most of the stuff listed in the Penalty Guidelines)
Rulings - If either player gets in doubt, the various online rule sources, while not perfect, are as good as most of the judges out there. If neither player notices, the mistake goes unnoticed just like in real life.
Player identity - We care about the decks, not who plays them.

[Belgareth]

The issue with the disconnects and time limits are very real ones.
Yes people will often d/c when they are losing to get a restart (this used to happen to me all the time when playig against combo).
I don't think using online tourny's is a good way to go as it's a slippery slope arguement.
These online tounies often only use an online handle so anyone could generate a tournement and rig it by entering multiple decks themselves or whatever.

[Brehn]

These online tounies often only use an online handle so anyone could generate a tournement and rig it by entering multiple decks themselves or whatever.

Same is true for IRL tournaments, you can fake those, too. Let's just not count those tournaments where 8/8 top8 decks are Nourishing Lich or Enchantress Bloom and we're good.

[Belgareth]

Same is true for IRL tournaments, you can fake those, too. Let's just not count those tournaments where 8/8 top8 decks are Nourishing Lich or Enchantress Bloom and we're good.

It's a lot more difficult in rl as online you could "play against yourself" , good luck doing that IRL (yes if you enter enough friends you can have them lose to you , before anyone brings that up).
9/10 online tournaments are probably fine, but as I said it's a slippery slope.

[Cabal-kun]

The issue with the disconnects and time limits are very real ones.
Yes people will often d/c when they are losing to get a restart (this used to happen to me all the time when playig against combo).
I don't think using online tourny's is a good way to go as it's a slippery slope arguement.
These online tounies often only use an online handle so anyone could generate a tournement and rig it by entering multiple decks themselves or whatever.

What if prizes are included? Then they'll be in a pinch for addresses. Though I suppose they could just use family addresses to by pass that.

Why don't we check IP addresses, or have some other form of verification? But those can be skirted too, can't they?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

First, it has been proven that the shuffler algorithim for MWS was created for 40-card decks. This alone skews any results, even if equal for both players.

Someone explain the logic here.


The only argument worth noting seems to be the disconnect thing. I think it would be fairly obvious if someone was abusing the disconnect system. They might get away with this once or twice. It seems less relevant than more major cheats that can happen irl. I myself have waltzed through tournaments (accidentally) with five Swords to Plowshares; that can't happen in this case.

Again, the cons (that it might be slightly easier to cheat- very arguable) are vastly outweighed by the pros (giving different metagames an equal opportunity to prove themselves).

[Peter_Rotten]

Again, the cons (that it might be slightly easier to cheat- very arguable) are vastly outweighed by the pros (giving different metagames an equal opportunity to prove themselves).

To prove what, exactly? (Not being nasty here; just want to further explore your ideas).

Possibly one could argue that an online tournie may be the only meta unbiased by regional influences. In other words, these tournies are a very feasable (I refuse to go back to Dictionary.com and risk being scarred by poor hair-lip kid, so yeah. I don't remember the correct spelling of "feasible") way to mash many metas together and theoritically see what does well in a "true" meta (whatever that means).

[ParkerLewis]

Someone explain the logic here.

It could be possible if the randomizer was very bad and typically generated the same values after 40 iterations. However, one would have to do it on purpose to choose not to use of the more commons methods (which typically loop after around 2^32 -1 iterations, or whatever but you get the idea) AND then make it that bad.

But yeah, that's bullshit. The MWS shuffler is good in a mathematical and statistic sense.

On the other hand, the real-life shufflers (ie ourselves) are incredibly bad, hence making the differences between the typical mws shuffles results and the ones we'd do ourselves, and the widespread whining about mws not being a good shuffler.

Of course, this has also a lot to do with the fact that an actual good randomized shuffling leads to "worse" draws than what we do irl.

[Parcher]

I keep seeing all kinds of arguements for or against this based on rules violations and such. I think these online tournament results are worthless as an addition to the current results, but for a different reason.

They are two entirely different tournaments, if not games.

Scenario One: We have our online player, who we'll call Hans. Hans gets up whenever he feels like, since that's when these tournaments start. Hans travels the six feet from his bed to his desk, which we'll call the tournament site. Hans plops down in his Laz-E-Boy with a Jolt in one hand and a Hot Pocket in the other. He sleeves up his hard-earned deck of Magic cards (boots up MWS). He enjoys the smooth sounds of Raamstein wafting from his speakers, while he adjusts his climate control. In between rounds, Hans can negotiate the seventeen feet to his bathroom and back. His only distraction during the tournament is mommy calling for him to take out the garbage.

Scenario Two: We have our tournament player, who we'll call Ed. Ed drives all night to get three hours of sleep on his friends freezing cold floor. Ed has spent $600 to get the required cards he needs to play in this tournament, which he paid $25 to enter. The site is sweltering and foul-smelling due to the preponderance of fat guys in the room. He is constantly smacked in the back by the player behind him, and his opponent is talking shit which he coincedently smells like. The tournament continues. Since these rounds are timed, Ed hasn't eaten in eight hours, and his head is pounding. He has to pee so bad that his hands are shaking since there is no bathroom on-site. His opponents calls a judge to watch for slow-play because he is having trouble concentrating due to the omnipresent pressure in his bladder, and the twenty-odd spectators crowding the match and running their mouths. While running to the bathroom while the top 8 is prepared, he leaves his deck on the table and it gets stolen.

Now obvious exaggerations aside, I can't see a fair comparison between the two. I would think it would be fine to track online tournament results as a separate entity, but there are just too many reasons not to combine them. No one combines results of online and real poker. They are two completely different skill sets. And for every online player that can actually play in real games, there are 10,000 that couldn't win a match no matter how good they are on the computer.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Sooo, you think tournament results are worth more based upon the level of suffering that was endured to get the result?

Parcher, what the Hell? Seriously. I can't remember the last time I saw you post something that didn't just look like needlessly contradictory bullshit. It's like you're not even trying to be taken seriously anymore. This doesn't make a goddamned lick of sense.


@PR: People argue that their metagame is/isn't (but usually that it is) more relevant than others, despite the totally different results of what's dominant or not, based on the idea that the other metagame is full of "scrubby" decks. If this excuse were eliminated by mashing together different metagames, we should see which deck was stronger overall. What's complicated about that?

[emidln]

Any player who is unprepared for a real tournament deserves to lose. If you're going to drop cash on a deck, entry fee, gas money, and a hotel room, then you can damn well get to bed on time or learn to play on a caffeine high.

What if this situation is turned around? A 34 year old guy who just got home from work, is dealing with a nagging wife, and a seven year old who is screaming a Jessie McCartney song at the top of her lungs. This guy hasn't eaten since breakfast (his day at work was pretty hard and he ran errands at lunch) and he's just trying to fit his games in before he has to help prepare dinner and spend time with the family. His situation is in no way better than the tournament player you described Parcher, but his only real recourse might be to not play in the tournament compared to your player's option of simply being prepared.

[Parcher]

I know at least six different players that have over a 300 point difference between their MODO rating, and their real rating. On both sides, and with equivelant play of both types.

The same goes for online vs. real poker. Even if all of the problems didn't exist with the differences between what can happen on MWS and IRL didn't exist, all of the other influences do.

Ignoring everything else, if you haven't ever beaten (or lost to) an opponent because you saw their face when you played a certain card, heard their groan after they mulliganed again, watched them glance at their graveyard after they drew a card, or saw them lean forward in their chair after you declared blocks, then you probably should pay more attention.

The two different games have completely different skill sets, and completely different requirements, distractions, and problems.

[J.V.]

No, Don't count them.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I know at least six different players that have over a 300 point difference between their MODO rating, and their real rating. On both sides, and with equivelant play of both types.

The same goes for online vs. real poker. Even if all of the problems didn't exist with the differences between what can happen on MWS and IRL didn't exist, all of the other influences do.

Ignoring everything else, if you haven't ever beaten (or lost to) an opponent because you saw their face when you played a certain card, heard their groan after they mulliganed again, watched them glance at their graveyard after they drew a card, or saw them lean forward in their chair after you declared blocks, then you probably should pay more attention.

The two different games have completely different skill sets, and completely different requirements, distractions, and problems.

While this has lots of relevance to playskills, it has zero to deck strengths, which is the relevant measurement here. We're not rounding up who the best players are, or I'd agree that the points you raise are really important. We just want to know what decks beat others with the greatest frequency. Whether or not the pilot can read a face isn't a highly relevant factor to that.

[Parcher]

So are we talking about a metegame breakdown? I thought this thread was about updating the DTB with the addition of online top 8s. If it's a metagame addition than I am all for it.

If it is top 8 results, than I don't see why skill wouldn't be relevant. That's my point. Regardless of whether one is better or worse than the other, they are most definitely different. Unless it is suggested that skill has nothing to do with top 8 results in online tournaments, which I can't imagine being suggested here.

If it is to find which decks are performing well in online tournaments, then again, I am for it; just seperately from the current lists. Since while the decklists may be the same, the skills, game play, interactions, cheats to watch for, judging, time restraints, card availability, distractions, flow, and mind games are all different.

[xsockmonkeyx]

I think we should count the Source Tourney for sure. After all, it's our own damn tourney and we have a lot of documentation in terms of reports, lists etc. But that's about it. Other tourneys are probably not as organized, and certainly have less documentation.

[Giles]

I think we should count the Source Tourney for sure.

[m03]

Count.

At the least, online, almost every interaction is logged, so it seems like it's actually easier to track the game state and verify that things are being done fairly.

As for cheating on MWS, good luck with trying to stack your deck, rolling with loaded dice, or pulling the sleight of hand tricks that can turn a Ponder into a Demonic Tutor. Seriously, cheating in real life is way easier.

[Atwa]

I think we should count the Source Tourney for sure. After all, it's our own damn tourney and we have a lot of documentation in terms of reports, lists etc. But that's about it. Other tourneys are probably not as organized, and certainly have less documentation.

True thing. It's even possible to record the matches, which I did when I wanted to write a report in the tourney some months ago.

[georgjorge]

So far, the most convincing argument against has been the cheating via disconnecting. Now Magic-League has some policies to prevent it, even if it's unfair at times (when MWS crashes with no fault of your own). To quote...


If a disconnection without reconnection occurs, there are two options for the judge to decide. Maybe the error was caused by an illegal or improbable action, an unexpected action, one of the previously mentioned modifications of objects. In this case, the user causing the error could've avoided the mistake (and should, next time!). He made an action that directly caused the error, so it's his fault; he is responsible for the lost game state, and he receives a game loss penalty for the mistake. The other option needs to be chosen when you can't determine what caused the error or can't blame any side for committing an illegal action. In this situation, the judge should rule to replay the game (restart the game from the beginning) with some time extension.

which is explained in detail here (http://www.magic-league.com/article/412/myths_about_mws,_programming_errors_and_how_to_avoid_them.html). You can usually see in the log which side caused the crash.


So, what about counting at least Magic-League tourneys ? Because those have time limits, judges, and policies for disconnect, which takes care of most arguments against online tourneys. The only problem with those is that they don't have the Top 8 played out but determined via single elimination, which distorts the results to some extent.


I think it should also be possible to count the Source and MTGSalvation tourneys, based on that many people from this site take part in them, which leads to a kind of "honor system" that goes a long way towards preventing cheating. I hope so at least :wink:

[KillemallCFH]

So, what about counting at least Magic-League tourneys ? Because those have time limits, judges, and policies for disconnect, which takes care of most arguments against online tourneys. The only problem with those is that they don't have the Top 8 played out but determined via single elimination, which distorts the results to some extent.Counting M-L tournaments would be a huge mistake. Burn would be a DTB every month. The fact that it is single elimination, and the fact the 50%+ of the players are just Standard/Block/Extended players who said "Oh look, a Legacy Trial. What the hell, I'll load up whatever deck won the last trial and play." make it a very skewed perception of what succeeds in a real Legacy environment. This doesn't happen as often in real life, as going to a tournament usually isn't a matter of "What the hell, let's play," since that requires time, money, and cards. Even online swiss tournaments doesn't usually get these kinds of players, since they require a large time commitment.

I'm still unsure as to whether or not online Swiss tournaments should count (I'm leaning on the side of no, for reasons already stated.), but I can say with certainty that M-L tournaments should not be counted.

[Belgareth]

Not that I would believe anyone on the source (who is probably in it for the testing) would do this per se.
However MWS has long been reported as having a very easily abused flaw, in that even with the shuffler being fairly good certain slots have a higher chance of coming up with certain other slots so the order you put the cards into your decklist when creating it become largely relevant.
Obviously this sort of thing can't be proven easily , but it's enough that I take MWS results with a pinch of salt (don't get me started on apprentice which is worse).
Theres an easy solution (easy for the site goers, not so easy on the staff).
Either do an (online added) sub forum of dtb that shows the results if both types were used but keeps the normal forum for the purists.
Or have 1 (just online) dtb subforum , which would allow an interesting comparative tool between paper magic and digital and how much card availability effects the meta (I could see an article here if someone wants to help collect the data ;)).

[freakish777]

but not on MWS (or get much tougher, e.g. drawing extra cards because of the sound effect and chat log):
Cheater peeks at the opponent's cards while shuffling
Cheater peeks at the cards in his library
Cheater stacks his library while shuffling


Actually, if you made a hack for MWS, what would be the point if it didn't allow you to "ghost" look at your library and stack it (making no entry in the log)? I imagine if you can do that, it wouldn't be to have it also let you stack your opponent's deck without them knowing. I'm pretty sure there was a hack out their for Apprentice at one point that allows you to do just that (the first part at least, stacking your deck whenever you want, without creating any entry into the log so your opponent never knows).

[Ewokslayer]

Since online tournaments don't have a significant prize nor a significant entry cost, their validity as a indicator of deck strength in the metagame has to be questioned.
People will bring more experimental decks and decklists than to a tournament that costs money and generally more signifcant time than an online tournament.
There is also a large difference between what decks are fun to play online and what decks are fun to play in real tournaments. Online tournaments are more about fun and experimenting, real tournaments fun and winning.
Perhaps a decks success in that month's online tournaments would be the basis for its inclusion in the Buzzard forum for the month.

[georgjorge]

Counting M-L tournaments would be a huge mistake. Burn would be a DTB every month.

I'm still unsure as to whether or not online Swiss tournaments should count (I'm leaning on the side of no, for reasons already stated.), but I can say with certainty that M-L tournaments should not be counted.

I don't play in every M-L Legacy tourney, but in the last few I played I encountered competitive decks and good play. Also, take a look at the decks that placed in the last few tournaments...

1st: UGr Moon Thresh
2nd: Eva Green
3rd: Enchantress

1st: Aggro Loam
2nd: Suicide Black
3rd: Dreadstill

1st: Faerie Stompy
2nd: Burn
3rd: Aggro Loam

...doesn't look that bad to me.

[Peter_Rotten]

The tournaments being single elim. (if that is true) is a concern to me. Although it is not listed in the DTB forum, one reason we choose 33plus people for the cut-off was that it would include 6 rounds of Swiss.

I'm also concerned about the lack of human interaction duing the games. At the last tournament I was at, I was watching my opponent. It's turn 3, he draws his card, looks at his yard and then glances at mine. Hmmm... wonder what he drew.

Do online games let you "play the player" as often as real ones?

[Skeggi]

Do online games let you "play the player" as often as real ones?

The answer to this question is an obvious: 'No.'

The question following up is: 'What influence does this have in regular tournaments vs. online tournaments?'

The answer to that question is, I think: 'Online tournaments will be more deck-dependant than pilot-dependant.'

The question following up is: 'Is that a good thing, when rating decks and preparing for a tournament?'

A propos: I still don't like the 100% proxy idea. I wouldn't like 1 proxy on a normal tournament to begin with.

[Brehn]

I'm also concerned about the lack of human interaction duing the games. At the last tournament I was at, I was watching my opponent. It's turn 3, he draws his card, looks at his yard and then glances at mine. Hmmm... wonder what he drew.

Do online games let you "play the player" as often as real ones?

I still don't get what the problem is there. This only leads to fewer bad decks top8ing just because their pilot was competent... or not?

[Lego]

The big concern for me is the deck choices that go into online tournament. I know that personally, when I play online, I'm likely to pick up decks that I think are fun rather than particularly viable. If the same is true across the board (I'm sure it's not, but I think the trend exists) then we're likely to wind up with a fairly skewed metagame that allows weaker decks to do well.

However you look at it, the DTB forum is supposed to measure the success of decks that you are likely to face at any given tournament you go to. Since the online metagame is completely different, or even non-existent, it seems wrong to include such tournaments, as they won't tell you much about what you'll face in real life.

[m03]

The big concern for me is the deck choices that go into online tournament. I know that personally, when I play online, I'm likely to pick up decks that I think are fun rather than particularly viable. If the same is true across the board (I'm sure it's not, but I think the trend exists) then we're likely to wind up with a fairly skewed metagame that allows weaker decks to do well.

However you look at it, the DTB forum is supposed to measure the success of decks that you are likely to face at any given tournament you go to. Since the online metagame is completely different, or even non-existent, it seems wrong to include such tournaments, as they won't tell you much about what you'll face in real life.


It's not much different than real life then. At the Hollywood Legacy tournament, I saw quite a few pet decks and/or piles of whatever they were able to throw together before the tournament being played. Just look at what decks placed high in that event (Affinity, Tog, etc.).

[Illissius]

So what about including online tournaments only if they have prizes and use swiss?

[Brehn]

So what about including online tournaments only if they have prizes and use swiss?

+1

[Nihil Credo]

+2. Seems a sensible restriction.

[Van Phanel]

+3

[Xurcks]

+ 4. Good idea , seems to be a fine restriction to me.

[Giles]

+5

[Peter_Rotten]

If we are going to be making one liners, then -6.

The idea stands at -1.

[technogeek5000]

If we are going to be making one liners, then -6.

The idea stands at -1.

-2.

I dont think this is a good idea. There are just to many factors that seperate deck choice and card choices to ount online and RL tournaments as a single group.

[Volt]

.

[thefreakaccident]

Between the fact that anyone can build any deck, tells are not apparent, and there is less stress in an online tournament; I honestly do not believe they should be counted...


Also put into account that players will not be able to contact eachother (not an issue in an actual tournament, either they are there or they aren't).


I am not saying that it does not take skill to play in online tournaments, nor am I discrediting people for their success in online tournaments... I am just saying that it is different, and changes the ways a tournament would 'go down'.

[Volt]

.

[thefreakaccident]

Playing a deck like solidarity or landstill once every five days for a tournament instead of playing it for several straight hours...



This also keeps people from getting momentum, and taking a game loss and going on tilt, but still.


I feel it gives a poor representation for a deck under these circumstances.

[Skeggi]

We can also go in another road; I thought the DTB list was a tool to prepare for a tournament. A RL tournament, not an online one...I could be wrong, but that'd suck :tongue: