planeswalker points

[Roy Raftery]

Has anyone seen the change to the DCI ratings? It was showcased on daily mtg yesterday.

Basically you cant lose points, the more you play the more points you get and you get multipliers for playing in bigger events.

Coming top 16 at a GP no longer automatically gives you a place on the pro tour.

 

the main thing is it rewards people for playing and not sitting on their rating, or being afriad to play because of their rating. I'm not saying i agree with all the changes but i think something did need to be done. you need to read the whole article to get an understanding of it though. The whole 'planeswalker points' thing feels a bit childish but i guess its all in good fun and adds to the fantasy feel.

more importantly, thank you wizards for my new pick up line, hi, i'm a level 36 sorceror, fancy a drink?

[Peter Dun]

this new change gives you the right... nay... the RESPONSIBILITY to be a jerk in every game... even fnm...

 

ESPECIALLY FNM

[Peter Dun]

this is what wizards doesn't understand.... having ultra competitive players at fnm is NOT a good thing

[Dan Barrett]

"Sorry, I don't speak to Adepts"

Philip Dickinson said:

i'm no longer going to be able to run the super-sporting comment of "...what's your rating again?" when i am losing to awful players

 

this change is going to force me to take my trash talk to another level

[Daniel Royde]

This does seem terrible. We go from a system that at least tried to reward better players, to one that actively tries not to.

[James Mills]

Level 41 Battlemage

 

Back of the net!!!

[James Mills]

Yeah instead they are rewarding people for playing and enjoying the game.

 

DAMN YOU WIZARDS!!!!

Daniel Royde said:

This does seem terrible. We go from a system that at least tried to reward better players, to one that actively tries not to.

[Peter Dun]

Mills: that's not fair. Some people simply can't play that much because of outside commitments. Only a very small % of people sit on rating. This new system heavily favours areas with more tournaments.

 

Under the current system ppl who do not play FNM like:

The OJs

Dan G

Richard Bland

etc.

 

might not even be qualified for nationals. Now, I don't care whether or not you like these ppl, but you have to admit that nationals without those players, and guys who play less frequently due to work (such as say... Simon O'Keefe) is a HUGE loss

[Thom Richardson]

 

Does anyone know roughly how many people attend our Nats Qualifiers?

 

Presumably qualification is going to be based off 1 4 Month Season, which contains all the qualifier tournaments, and whatever PTQs/GPs happen to fall in that window.

 

The UK people with the highest Competitive total in that time are going to be the ones playing on the PT or are travelling to GPs. 

Then the people who top 8 a NQ tournament (who are Qd anyway).

Then the people who play in multiple NQ tournaments but miss each time.

I doubt many people will be able to grind into the top 75 just by going to FNM. Though it could  be a tiebreaker between the people who go to and miss at all the qualifier tournaments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mark Langley]

It is a step in the right direction but unfortunately needs tweaking already as it seems 'rushed'. The multiplier for FNM is way too high and the qualification process is skewed heavily in favour of American players with regards to PT's. Otherwise its fine other than it currently promotes quantity over quality of play. That is pretty shocking. However all PTQ's now have a plane ticket as part of the prize so it does has a huge plus from that perspective.

 

It is a step in the right direction, just poorly implemented to start with I think. If you don't have access to a FNM you will notice a difference. You will also notice a difference between 8 player FNM's and 40 player FNM's. It doesn't feel like a level playing field currently.

 

Longterm it will definately be a better system.

 

Level 33 Invoker.

[Kieran Symington]

I wonder if this means that if I turn up to every FNM and qualifier during nats season I could qualify on rating even if I never actually won a game. That would be fun.

[Mark Langley]

Highly unlikely as you would only recieve participation points. The system does require you to win to be in.

 

I think when its tweaked it will be a good system.

Kieran Symington said:

I wonder if this means that if I turn up to every FNM and qualifier during nats season I could qualify on rating even if I never actually won a game. That would be fun.

[James Mills]

I'm afraid that these people will have to start playing more then. The premis behind this decision is that it will get the players who sit on their rating involved with playing more tournaments.  

 

I don't go to FNM but now I'm going to reconsider because of the planeswalker points.

 

Obviously I will start when core set draft rotates out.

 

Hold on, when did I ever say I don't like any of the people you have mentioned?

Peter Dun said:

Mills: that's not fair. Some people simply can't play that much because of outside commitments. Only a very small % of people sit on rating. This new system heavily favours areas with more tournaments.

 

Under the current system ppl who do not play FNM like:

The OJs

Dan G

Richard Bland

etc.

 

might not even be qualified for nationals. Now, I don't care whether or not you like these ppl, but you have to admit that nationals without those players, and guys who play less frequently due to work (such as say... Simon O'Keefe) is a HUGE loss