A Comprehensive Report on Organizing Commander Tournaments
Pandora's Deckbox
Epochalyptik
12 October 2014
3968 views
12 October 2014
3968 views
The following article is an academic report that I wrote approximately 1.5 years ago. It's based on original research and explores the aspects of Commander tournament organization based on responses to surveys and interviews. I have not reproduced the surveys here.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Background
- Magic: The Gathering
- The Commander Format
- Casual and Competitive Tendencies in the Commander Format
- Research Methodology
- Surveys
- Interviews
- Research Results
- Surveys
- Interviews
- Conclusion and Recommendation
Introduction
The intent of the research performed is to find a way to introduce Commander format of Magic: The Gathering into formal tournament play. It was inspired by a lack of official support for the format by the game’s creators, Wizards of the Coast, and growing popularity amongst players. The research will serve as the foundation for an assessment of Commander and its suitability for tournament play.
Background
The following subsections outline Magic: The Gathering as a game and Commander as a format of Magic: The Gathering.
Magic: The Gathering
Information in this section was obtained from the Wizards of the Coast website.
Magic: The Gathering (henceforth “Magic”) is the first and one of the most popular trading card games in the world. Wizards of the Coast (henceforth WOTC), a subsidiary of Hasbro Games, first released Magic in 1993. Magic is a complex game that includes collecting cards, formulating cards into decks, and using decks in competitive games against another players.
A deck of Magic cards typically contains 60 individual cards, which are chosen based on player preference and deck construction rules. Cards can be broken down into two basic categories: lands and spells. Lands are the primary source of mana, the in-game resource required to play most other cards. Spells are cards that affect the game in different ways in exchange for mana or other resources.
A basic game of Magic consists of two players, each with their own decks and 20 life points. The players each take turns casting spells and attacking with creatures in order to gain the advantage and eventually win. Games are often played in specific formats, each with their own rules. Sanctioned formats can be played in organized tournament settings with the support of WOTC. The majority of sanctioned events are held by local game stores (LGSs), which are the basic level of interaction between the individual player and any formal system. Tournament Organizers (TOs) are responsible for designing and hosting these events, and judges are responsible for executing the events and attending to player needs.
The Commander Format
Information in this section was obtained from the Commander (Elder Dragon Highlander) website.
Commander, a format of Magic: The Gathering, is unique in that it is the first and largest format of Magic created by the players rather than by WOTC. Typically, WOTC creates and maintains the formats of Magic; control of these formats is thus out of the hands of the players. As a result of direct player involvement, Commander is widely popular with many players, and the player community has a special interest in developing, playing, and maintaining Commander. Partly because Commander is a community format, it is not yet sanctioned by WOTC. Therefore, it is impossible to run official tournaments of Commander. Some groups of players opt to host their own events, but these small-scale tournaments lack the organizational structure and prize support systems of sanctioned events.
Casual and Competitive Tendencies in the Commander Format
The following section summarizes observations recorded while watching Commander players and games at an LGS.
Commander is often seen as a casual format, and its validity as a competitive format is disputed. More advanced players tend to treat the low barrier to entry into the format as a detriment because it all allows comparatively inexperienced players to participate. This is often a deterrent because it means that the players receive less of a challenge, and thus cannot further their own skills.
At the center of the debate between the casual and competitive aspects of Commander is the disparity between casual players and competitive players. Colloquially, these terms are relative and refer to loosely defined demographics of players identified by certain tendencies or mindsets. This report will not investigate the causes for these mindsets. Rather, it will only define them and assess the impact they have on the Commander format. This disparity is critical to understanding how players view Commander, and no effective tournament structure can be developed without at least considering the impact these groups have on player experiences.
Casual players tend to emphasize fun over victory – games are about the interactions and atmosphere instead of the raw power of any cards or decks. These players are observed to be less likely to invest money in their Commander decks; many consider themselves to have a limited budget to spend on Commander, and the power level of their cards is indirectly curtailed because the strongest cards often have relatively high market values. During games, casual players are more likely to consciously make decisions that result in comedic or unusual situations. Although they do not completely forego the plays that are the most technically correct or advantageous in their contexts, they are less likely to make a choice based on its correctness or advantageousness.
Competitive players exhibit the contrasting qualities. They are more likely to prioritize victory over random, comedic, or unusual experiences. Because winning is a predominant goal of competitive players, they are more likely to build decks by choosing powerful cards; they appear to be willing to spend more than casual players to get the best of what is available. Many competitive players exhibit perceptible seriousness during games; technical correctness and propensity to generate victory are the motivating factors behind their decisions.
Commander players can normally define themselves as either casual or competitive, implying that the demarcation between the two is, at least to some extent, clear to them. Players also exhibit a degree of cliquishness – they are likely to hold games with those of the same mindset, but demonstrate a lesser inclination to cross the perceived line between the casual and competitive groups. It can be extrapolated from this observation that players most enjoy games among peers who share the same basic game philosophy.
The issue becomes more complex when it considers not just the alignment of players in regards to casual or competitive nature, but whether players of one group acknowledge the existence or legitimacy of the other. The majority of players seem to acknowledge that Commander is a mixed format – they are aware that casual and competitive players exist and are different. However, this does not necessarily imply that they consider the both groups to be legitimate subsections of the format. The logic for denying a group’s legitimacy varies by individual, but many players appear to base their conclusions on the perceived trueness of the group’s philosophy to the perceived intent of the Commander format. For example, an individual who views Commander as a format aimed at providing fun and interesting games may deny that competitive players have a legitimate stake in the nature and future of Commander because competitive players tend to play to win rather than strictly to have fun.
As a result of this split between casual and competitive groups, players have, whether consciously or unconsciously, developed stereotypes of each demographic. In some cases, this leads to mere aversion. In others, it leads to tense relations and uncomfortable atmospheres. TOs should be aware of the potential impact of the casual versus competitive debate on the organization and execution of Commander tournaments.
Research Methodology
The following subsections offer synopses of the two predominant original research methods utilized: surveys and interviews.
In both methods, it was critical to gauge directly the community opinions of Commander. Surveying and interviewing players provides data from the demographic with the most stakes in Commander and with the most interest in discussing and developing Commander. The players are the first group impacted by changes made to Commander as a format, and it is for them that these changes are made.
Surveys
A two-part survey was distributed online through surveymonkey.com, a website that facilitates user creation and distribution of surveys. Part I focused on player experience with Commander and general opinions about Commander as a format. Part II focused on Commander tournament design. Each survey consists of only multiple-choice questions; some answer choices allowed subjects to input their own answers or descriptions. All of the questions and answers were designed by an experienced Commander player and theorist to accommodate the most likely ranges of answers; “please specify” options were included to allow for responses outside of the anticipated ones.
Hyperlinks to the surveys were posted on two Magic forums: tappedout.net and mtgsalvation.com. These forums are gathering places for players to discuss Magic decks and game philosophy. Therefore, surveying the users of these websites provided data and opinions directly from the Magic community. The same post content was used to distribute the survey hyperlinks to each website.
Interviews
Interviews provide detailed player opinions to supplement general survey data. Each interview was conducted individually, and each interview subject was chosen because he or she represented a different set of experiences. Interviewees were asked their opinions of Commander, the Magic community, and how Commander could be better organized. The questions were not uniform; each interview began with queries based on the individual’s experiences and evolved fluidly with the discussion. Notes were taken throughout the process. Interviewees were asked for consent to be quoted or referenced by name within this document; only the names of those who consented will appear.
The first interviewee is both a judge and a Commander player; the combination of roles allows that individual to make observations from both perspectives. As a player, he offered an in-depth analysis of some ways Commander is typically played. The information from the interview clarified information from the surveys, and it also provided new ideas that were not expressed in the limited survey space. As a judge, he offered a review of some high-level problems that Commander might face in tournament play, and he also submitted feedback on the nature of player interactions across games.
The second interviewee is a game store manager. He offered his thoughts about player interactions and the relevance of a tournament organizer to an event’s players. This interview is particularly important because it is the LGS that is directly responsible for the organization of small-scale tournaments and events. Except in those instances where players hold their own informal tournaments, LGS events are the most basic examples of organized play in any format. The LGS therefore plays an important role in balancing the demand for tournaments with the need to maintain a welcoming and healthy play environment. The perspective of an individual intimately familiar with the responsibilities and needs of an LGS is invaluable to anyone aiming to develop guidelines for organized play.
Research Results
This section provides an summary of the survey results and interview responses, and it also analyzes the data for implications and relevance to Commander tournament guidelines.
Surveys
Part I of the survey returned 375 response sets and Part II of the survey returned 323 response sets, but due to the freemium design of surveymonkey.com, only 100 response sets from each part are viewable. This report will consider only those 100 response sets.
From the responses to these questions, it can be theorized that the Commander community as a whole is relatively open to the idea of a mixed format. 59.60% of respondents view Commander as a mixed format. By comparison, 37.37% support that Commander is casual and 3.03% support that Commander is competitive.
These results do not correlate to the respondents’ individual tendencies in Commander games – 30% play Commander as a mixed format (meaning those players play both casual and competitive games) while 62% play Commander casually and 8% play Commander competitively. When asked about what they believe of other players, 96% of respondents believed the Commander community is in some way mixed. The survey results indicate that most view that mix as predominantly casual, but it is significant that the vast majority of sampled individuals acknowledge that other players can have their own preferences.
The majority of respondents noted that they either would or might like to participate in a Commander tournament and also that their LGSs would likely host Commander tournaments. However, the data reveals that these individuals are also evenly split on the question of whether Commander should become a sanctioned format with official rules and procedures. This indicates that the respondents may prefer Commander to remain player-operated rather than officially governed, even though they would also like tournaments to be made available to them.
Although the majority of responses to Part I of the survey indicated that the Commander community was likely to be largely casual, the responses to Part II reveal that the community is split on how best to organize a Commander tournament. Most respondents support that tournament design should in some way acknowledge the difference between casual and competitive players. Over half of all responses are in favor of incorporating both casual and competitive players into the tournament, but those responses do not indicate with any certainty whether the two groups should be accommodated separately or within the same games.
The responses to the other questions regarding tournament design signaled large majorities supporting specific elements. As a group, the respondents believe that Commander tournaments should be run with four-player games that each last sixty minutes. Each match should have a single game, and the tournament should run three rounds. Traditional victory is the most popular means of determining a winner, and the event should be structured as a Swiss tournament.
Interviews
The first interviewee, Min Moldover, is a judge and Commander player. He identifies himself as a casual player, but acknowledges that Commander is a mixed format. When asked about the concept of an organized Commander tournament, Moldover expressed disapproval; he supports the format, but he feels that organized play introduces too many uncontrollable issues. Specifically, he believes it is difficult to design any structure that would attempt to separate casual and competitive players. Moldover clarifies that because the notions of casual and competitive, while somehow identifiable to players, are still subjective, it would be impossible to standardize a means of classifying decks. Therefore, it is logistically favorable to support casual and competitive players in the same tournament without differentiating between them.
Moldover argues that a carefully formulated prize structure could be used to discourage competitive players from dominating the casual players. A flat prize payout with relatively low value would indirectly control the competitive players. Moldover argues that this control is necessary to maintain a healthy and satisfying atmosphere for the players as a whole. Smaller prizes would give the competitive players less incentive to aggressively win their games, which would in turn create a more relaxed environment. Although such a structure does necessitate smaller monetary or product rewards, it does emphasize what Moldover believes is the most important aspect of Commander: enjoyability.
Furthermore, Moldover’s responses clarified one of the realities of organized Commander play: the demand that Commander as a format places on judges is greater than the demand mandated by other formats. Because the Commander rules allow for almost unlimited freedom to players as they construct their decks, situations arise in Commander games that could almost never be imagined in other formats. Judges must therefore know to a greater extent the rules of both traditional Magic and the Commander format. This presents challenges to judges who might normally be qualified to handle events of other formats.
The second interviewee, William Voight, is an LGS manager. Although he does not play Commander, he does organize tournaments for most other formats of Magic. He offered valuable insight into the relationship between a TO and the players participating in his or her event. Voight explains that the primary purpose of an LGS event should be to ensure the players have fun and enjoy their experience. To that end, it is vital that TOs at the LGS level know their constituents and accommodate them in a democratic way. These sentiments reinforce the stance that a tournament structure must take into account any factors that might influence the experience of the players.
Because Voight is not a Commander player, he stated that he felt he did not have the depth of familiarity required to answer questions specific to Commander itself.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The following tournament structure was developed based on the observations, survey results, and interview responses gathered throughout the research process. It aims to accommodate the opinions and demands of the Commander community while remaining logistically viable enough to implement at the LGS level.
Qualities:
- Free-for-all Swiss tournament structure
- Three sixty-minute rounds
- One game per match
- Four players per game
- Flat prize payout, low value prize pool
These are the recommended qualities of a Commander tournament based on the available data about player preferences. They may be tailored to suit the individual needs of each LGS, and they are flexible enough to allow reasonable modifications. As the Commander community continues to expand and player opinions changes, these suggestions may become obsolete. At that time, changes should be made to accommodate the current needs of the players.
YoYoJunkie says... #2
I feel that the armada league rules and point system would make for a much greater tournament structure where everyone is able to earn points and allow even someone who didn't win all their pod matches but had some really cool plays or disrupted the game quite a bit with some wild shenanigans to still be in the running for prize support.
This doesn't exclude anyone and allows for a very good mixed casual vs competitive player base in a tournament environment and also doesn't require a dumbing down of the prize support available.
October 12, 2014 6:01 p.m.
If you incentivise certain playstyles you are punishing groups of people who don't WANT to play in 'cool' or 'disruptive' ways.
October 12, 2014 6:05 p.m.
YoYoJunkie says... #4
You need to look at the armada league rules there are points for everything not just the example above. Point is if you're not a competitive player but still have cool combos or tricks, or deal the first point of damage or cast consecutive spells for 5 turns (t1 play something for 1cmc t2 play something for 2cmc t3 play something for 3cmc ect.) You're earning points ChiefBell so no group is left out or forced into a play style that's not their normal...
October 12, 2014 6:19 p.m.
YoYoJunkie: (Googled it and looked it over). It does disincentivise certain strategies, though. By giving negative points for "Wrecking a player's mana base" and "Defeating an opponent before their fifth turn" and even having a Sol Ring or Mana Crypt t1, you are telling people who want to play their competitive level or even tuned decks that what they play is not what we want. It allows for more of the casual level players to do their thing, but the competitive level players and a good chunk of the middle ground are shut out.
October 12, 2014 6:25 p.m.
I enjoyed this article. Commander is a new format to me, though one I have thouroughly enjoyed. Commander is in my opinion a mixed format, but I personally prefer the casual, comedic play that ensues when me and my friend sit down with 100 cards each. We are all relatively competetive in our "sanctioned" format brewing, so Commander allows us the opportunity to enjoy combos, or cards that we normally would NEVER play. That is the draw, for me personally, to the format. Great article Epoch...and good luck in your future studies. I would be glad to see more articles of a scholarly pursuit included weekly. Not only by you of course, but by the community as a whole.
October 12, 2014 6:27 p.m.
Logic - either you award points equally to all players for all plays in which case it's pointless OR you reward certain plays more than others which incentivises certain strategies and unduly punishes others. Those are your options.
October 12, 2014 6:49 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
@Scytec: You should look at my previous article, Understanding Commander as a Social Format (if you haven't already). It is indeed a mixed format.
October 12, 2014 7:02 p.m.
I read it. :p Back when you posted. I think I had been playing commander for a week when you posted it, so I did not grasp the core concept as well as I do now. Granted I am still new to the format, I have at the very least a basic understanding of the rules and values in differing styles of play.
October 12, 2014 8:33 p.m.
ColdHeartedSith says... #10
Seems good, maybe fax this to WOTC and maybe they will make better choices then they would not reading this. If you did already before I'd say now's a good time to cycle again. @Epochalyptik
October 13, 2014 1:34 a.m.
YoYoJunkie says... #11
Btw Epochalyptik good effort and i wish you were able to collect the data above and beyond the base 100 per questionnaire.
Have you been able to find a survey that would allow you to see more of the replies and answers to your surveys?
I do find it interesting where you went with your thought process and subject matter.
Locally i have a few guys that are extremely competitive and 1 is all about including the new/non competitive players and will usually down play his hands to accommodate these non competitive players but on the contrast there is another guy who is ruthless and will dominate anyone anytime and has built his deck to be extremely unfair (fair isnt exactly the word I'm looking for here but you get the idea i hope) and makes games completely 1 sided and very diametrically opposed to a fun game.
Maybe we could see about a study in the common courtesies that each group find are willing to offer in games with a mix if new/non competitive players as a hardcore competitive player and vise versa as a non competitive player in a mix with more competitive players.
I hope that made sense (it made a bunch of sense as i thought it lol)
I'd love for WotC/the EDH rules committee to take some initiative to really make an effort to find a happy medium for EDH/commander tournaments and it seems like it may be worth your time to put your info and knowledge gathered from your study into their hands and see if you can get a dialog going to further this knowledge as i think you are on to something and this could be the stepping stones to making some strides to having a successful tourney attack plan to include everyone.
Thanks again for the effort on this info you've made available.
-YoYoJunkie
October 13, 2014 1:40 p.m.
BreadManDan says... #12
Enjoyed the article.I only play EDH as I feel time restraints of my work schedule and family life keep me too busy to keep up with standard. I play for fun, but the bottom line is I want to win. YoYoJunkie mentioned... "I feel that the armada league rules and point system would make for a much greater tournament structure where everyone is able to earn points and allow even someone who didn't win all their pod matches but had some really cool plays or disrupted the game quite a bit with some wild shenanigans to still be in the running for prize support."I played in this type of tournament not too long ago, and I didn't enjoy it at all. Too much of an emphasis was put on earning points and playing cards just to earn those point. I want to play my deck to hopefully beat my opponents, not score points and not really care if I win the game or lose, as my point total could make me win.
October 13, 2014 5:30 p.m.
EpicVulcan says... #13
I think you should organize a tournament of the style suggested and send a video of it to WotC, sort of saying "This is how this could work. Just a suggestion though.
October 14, 2014 3:49 p.m.
I enjoyed this article, well written, using statistics that a company would you know, actually use. Backing to support your views.
To give further credibility on a research study, post links to (defunct) surveys so people can see what were asked.
October 14, 2014 5:05 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
@Evoksva_: Here's a link to the original MTGS survey thread.
October 14, 2014 5:10 p.m.
Tonberry333 says... #16
Personaly ive seen a lot of people try commander tournaments and ive noticed one thing, competitive players always win. That to me seems to be a failing in swiss style play because it rewards players for winning only, however as was pointed out above you cannot just award points for other things like creative play or combo plays or things like that, again earning points seems to defeat the purpose of the format. I personally think that the best way to organise the tournaments would be to seperate players by valuing the decks and having a cap on deck price, this would stop super competitive decks from taking over by basically nerfing them and letting casual players get a foot in the door. However i also feel that it should be run side by side with an unlimited cost format which would allow super competitie decks to play.
October 14, 2014 8:44 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #17
@Tonberry333: You see the problem, though, right? The assumption that competitive players and decks winning in a competitive event structure is bad is really, in my opinion, a misapprehension, and it leads to needless exclusion.
If you're going to organize an event, announce ahead of time that you're only going to determine placement based on traditional victories -or- based on a point system that favors some other kind of playstyle. Don't try to mix the two. There are a number of fables about trying to please everyone and ending up pleasing no one.
Once you start trying to use arbitrary guidelines to segregate players according to playstyle or deck value (and by the way, a deck's price tag is in no way an indication of whether it's casual or competitive), you end up overcomplicating the system and alienating many of your players. Even if you could somehow sort every player into a separate league of some kind, you'd still need to find a way to run two different tournaments at once.
There's no obligation to pander to one kind of player over another. If you're going to create a competitive environment, you should do so well aware of the fact that competitive environments, by their very design, breed competitive players, decks, and playstyles. If you're going to run an event that focuses on casual play, I think that you're (1) misinterpreting the purpose of casual play and (2) going to ultimately limit yourself to a heavily regulated league system that ends up alienating many players in the interest of "creating" an environment to shelter others.
Why not just let playgroups handle casual play and let people enter a tournament under no illusions that it will be a competitive playing field?
After rereading this post, it occurs to me that it's at least moderately acidic. I should perhaps explain that this is one of the galvanizing discussions within the format because it's usually the one that produces the most senseless logistical structures and ends up fracturing player bases rather than encouraging them to form and enjoy the format.
October 14, 2014 10:45 p.m.
I read an article about a psychologist who did some research on EDH and was very intrigued by how the format brought more of that elusive concept of "fun" back into a wonderful franchise. Essentially, he was also the owner of a game store who also entertained the idea of running "competitive EDH". What he did was interesting, he had everyone "register" their decks by name and by commander for a fee of some $10. During these tournaments he had 2 premade lists of achievements to hit and a leveling primer. People would attend EDH night or these tournaments and their wins would earn points that would have their commanders level up. During certain levels, they would win prizes and would be granted the ability to edit their decks from the preregistered version.
Points were only about 30% wins, the rest of the points were assigned by achievements or certain capstones. The players would be given cards with certain achievements that had to be either signed off by the other player or inspected by a local judge, and returned for the achievement to get signed off. Prizes would be small, booster pack of your choice, lead judge giving a good examination of your deck, and then lead up to the final level where you were awarded a playmat that fit the commander.
During a tournament (back on topic) Points were assigned by a combination of wins and style. Decks were critiqued later for keeping in with the registered deck's style, point, and for creative uses of the deck. This only amounted to a preset % of the overall score. The last remainder of the points were points that were assigned in full at first, but were subtracted for every card in the deck that was pulled from a common staples list. The staples list was agonized over for a long time and were strictly pulled from the "absolutes" that people put in, like say Sensei's Divining Top in a non-samurai soldier deck, or say Sol Ring in like, any non-artificer deck. Same went for colored cards. Other effects were restricted in these tournaments, limiting decks to things like no more than 5 boardwipes and counterspells/control, not running pointless land destruction unless it specially benefited the deck in some way, and a publicly voted ban list. Paris mulligan was banned.
So, in a nutshell, what he theorized an EDH "competitive scene" could be:In shop: Leveling system with prizes, deck registration + fee (not allowed to change w/out levels), playing casually in the shop leveled commanders up, received perks for doing so, acheivements.
When a tournament rolled along: Local ban list, Point system not based on wins, but combination % of voted style, non-inclusion of preposted "staples", the win itself, and the lack of style-irrelevant cards. It was less a tournament about winning as it was doing it in style.
Winner of said tournament could get a shop-local area accepted custom commander that was made with actual materials so that the person would make a personally styled deck they love. Commander would be accepted wherever tournament as done in area.
October 14, 2014 11:48 p.m.
Tonberry333 says... #19
To be honest it seems to me that trying to run an EDH tournament is counterproductive to the essence of the format. It seems to me that no matter what you do you cannot run a casual tournament since tournaments are naturally competitive.At the very least it feel counterproductive and counterintuitive to do so, and trying to force it with rules and regulations just forces competition one way or the other. You either play in such a way as to force competitive players to play casual decks or you let competitive decks win, there is no middle ground unless you micromanage everything. I suppose what I am trying to say is that no matter what you do it will feel wrong to some amount of players, this is the antithesis of the format.
October 15, 2014 1:18 a.m.
shrug The psychologist tried.
Mini tourneys in smaller playgroups for, say, a fetchland.
October 15, 2014 1:25 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
@Tonberry333: Ah, this makes more sense now.
Remember, if you will, that Commander is not a casual format. It is a social one.
That said, I'll grant that most Commander players probably self-identify more as casual than competitive. But there has to be some point at which players accept that competitive structures lead to competitive atmospheres, so I can't really forgive players their "ignorance" of what kind of environment Commander tournaments produce. That's why I place the onus on the TOs to explicitly state what kind of environment they anticipate or at least hope to produce. Otherwise, you only end up disenfranchising certain players, which, regardless of whether you're pro-casual or pro-competitive, is a bad thing.
October 15, 2014 1:37 a.m.
Tonberry333 says... #22
Had not read that article but agree with it.
I think i can make my point more coherently now. Since it is a social game isolating one type of player (Casual players) by adding a structure, in the form of a tournament, detracts from the social aspect of the game.
As you say tho whichever side you sit on disenfranchising players is always a bad thing.
That being said it will still be a social tournament format however only for competitive players and that is not necessarily a bad thing (just like standard can be played casually and competitivly).
October 15, 2014 2:25 a.m.
Before I moved to another state some friends and I made an EDH play group that every 60 days we would meet up for a tournament where the decks were based off a certain criteria. The first one we chose was that the decks had to be one of the guild leaders. The overall winner of each tournament would pick the next criteria like mono-colored or tribal. The way we determined the winners was that we played 1 game per 4 people and had the two lower scores in each group play each other at random and the 2 higher scores do the same. You were awarded 1 point per kill and once everybody finished playing, we took a look at each others' decks (if you did not see enough from the play) and wrote down a persons name in rank of 1,2,3. You chose which one you valued more but the 3 ranks were theme, strength, and wildcard (basically whatever reason you wanted but generally was used for your fav deck). You could not vote for yourself obviously and for prize support everybody had to bring something in as an entry fee that was worth at least $10. Once finished 1st picked what they wanted and went all the way down the list and back to 1st if there was more. (Many people brought in more cards than 1 but the other cards did not have the $10 stipulation). We also had 3 cards that the store would put up as prizes for 1st 2nd and 3rd even though we paid nothing to the shop we did bring in many players that never knew it was there. We went from 4-8 people each time to 12 to as many as 24. Everybody loved the setup and people that did not get many kill points still had the chance to win since many points could be received from the voting aspect. I do not know how you would do something like that in a competitive aspect or rather I should say a professional since people could just vote for their friends. We never had that problem although were asked about it by the new players. Typically the more competitive decks would win but not always and not the top decks were expensive.
October 16, 2014 10:41 a.m.
You may remember my local issues with my LGS organizing a 6 week league. It was pointed out that you had written earlier articles on the subject matter and I've since reviewed both articles.
I plan on printing off both articles, and any more that you have regarding Commander as a casual, mixed, or competitive format. After doing so, I will make notes, take the recommendations, and formulate a way to restructure the league to accommodate all levels of players. That is to say while giving the competitive players their goal in winning, while not completely shutting out the casual players who decide they want to see how their new brew works in a "real" game.
I personally believe it can be done. There can be a happy medium, as long as everyone understands whats at stake. Prizes breed a competitive nature and the casual players have to be ready for that. At the same time the competitive players should remember this is a social format.
All to often I see players in my group forget what we're all doing and just focusing on winning. Almost like their focusing during FNM or a Qualifier of some sorts. Sadly I admit, I am one of those people. Sometimes you just need a reality check.
In short, there should at least be a way to maintain equilibrium. At least for the players who enjoy playing to play and the ones who want to lock down the board state. I still think if you treat Commander like 100 card singleton Legacy, you're playing the wrong format. But there is no reason the person playing Angus Mackenzie shouldn't be able to keep toe to toe with the player bringing in Zur the Enchanter in a 4 man game. While everyone is still having fun
October 17, 2014 3:20 a.m.
How did you get the interview with Min?
He judges at my LGS, so just wondering.
October 18, 2014 8:53 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #26
@Matsi883: I met with him at an event, I believe.
October 18, 2014 10:20 p.m.
rob_shifflett says... #27
What is your experience with a point based sturcture free-for-all?
November 3, 2014 7:07 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
I haven't played in a point-based system, but I've advised their creation, so I can offer that side of the story.
My personal opinion is that point-based leagues (we'll just say PBLs) are best suited to more casual events (hence my preference for league over tournament). The main advantage of the PBL concept is the ability to customize victory conditions to reward or punish certain things. You can nudge people away from things like infinite combos or noninteractive locks by taxing them. The main disadvantage is that this kind of system naturally alienates some players and playstyles, and it can be very difficult to balance the system such that it caters to most people (you can't cater to all).
I generally advise that people use PBL for more casual or laid back leagues and traditional victory rules for tournament settings. At least with traditional victory rules you aren't trying to integrate a casual-oriented victory system into a competitive-oriented event type.
November 3, 2014 9:37 p.m.
That idea of a point based system sounds excellent in an environment where deck power and competitiveness is varied.
Was this written for an assignment, or just for fun? It's extremely thorough and well organized.
November 20, 2014 10:59 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #30
It was originally written as part of an assignment.
The problem with point-based systems is that the TO invariably has to make difficult decisions about what to reward or punish, and there's a great risk that you'll disenfranchise one group (competitive or casual) in favor of the other.
ChiefBell says... #1
Nicely done. Thorough, consistent, and well reasoned.
A follow up study would be nice to evaluate the success of events that use the recommended qualities you set out in your closing section.
October 12, 2014 4:35 p.m.