Open Letter to WotC
Scott Burke
To: Wizards of the Coast
From: Scott Burke
Re: Tournament Suggestions
Dear WotC:
Marc Schmalz (from your customer service team) has said on the net that he is “open to suggestions” and that “the opinion here [at WotC] seems to be that pure sealed deck is too random” And he has asked for comments and ideas.
Here are mine.
I’ve been a long-time Magic fan, membership #1090, playing since alpha. I’ve watched you go through a lot of growth pains as a company, trying new things, sometimes successfully, often not. I have a lot of enthusiasm for the company as a whole, and I thin
That aside, in all honesty, I am extremely annoyed by the Duelist Convocation’s handling of this year’s major tournaments. I’m sure I haven’t put as many hours into thinking about it as you have, but I have enough tournament experience, both in Magic and
I am upset that you procrastinated so badly in determining a date for the Northwest Regional. I live in Oregon, and I have been asking for a date ever since you began discussing the regional structure. Through countless calls, I received a mix of stories,
I am upset that you have abandoned Type 1 tournaments completely insofar as national and world recognition is concerned. Not that current and future players will be disloyal, but among the current Type 1 players, you *had* the highest percentage of long-t
I am upset with the Duelist Convocation’s handling of last year’s tournament points. Your methods of tallying point totals were slipshod, error-prone, and ultimately, provided dubious results. I called to check my points, and the totals went up and down o
But I am upset with your current solution, which is a rating system. Yes, it prevents the unfair “points race” that occurred last year, but how did it solve the problem I have, living in Oregon? I had a dearth of tournaments to attend, and now I have a de
Well, I wouldn’t write you this letter if that was all. I won’t pull any punches... the worst thing you have done is to include a non-trivial amount of random luck in your Regional, National, and World titles with Type 3 play. I can think of any number o
But Magic? What are your World rules? Well, half of the score is based purely on luck in Type 3 play. The argument that says deck-building skill triumphs over luck in Type 3 play will be demonstrably false for the upcoming Nationals and World. I hope some
To compound the idiocy, the final eight players go to single-elimination! I felt a glimmer of hope when I saw the Swiss-style qualifying to get from 64 to 8, but then I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read that suddenly it switched back to single-eliminat
It would be a bit rude to point out all these flaws without at the very least offering some suggestions. I really only have one: take a lesson from the French organization. They have done the thinking that you should have done, and there’s no embarrassmen
and duplicate Magic of some kind (as nearly fair as you can get it) should be adopted for the final eight.
I personally think you should have a Type 1 title, a Type 2 title, and a Type 4 title (I find your current Type 3 rules badly flawed). I like the concept of testing deck-building skills on the fly, but you’ve got to improve the fairness of your Type 3 tou
, because those people may have gotten bad sealed decks. They’ll just be one of the best 64 who got luckiest with the Type 3 scoring and had a good solid Type 2 deck.
Finally, please switch ALL sanctioned tournaments to Swiss style (no elimination) as soon as possible. I know you’re thinking about it, but just do it! There isn’t a better time than the US Nationals at Origins and the World Championship. If you run the W
I hope you’re listening, but really, you’ve got to act.
Regards,
Scott Burke
DC Member 1090, #11 in DC Top 25
Sparky!!
> Dear WotC:
>
> Marc Schmalz (from your customer service team) has said on the net that
> he is "open to suggestions" and that "the opinion here [at WotC] seems
> to be that pure sealed deck is too random" And he has asked for comments
> and ideas.
I've already pointed this out to Scott, but I need to post it here, too.
What I believe I said was that *people on .misc* thought sealed deck
was too random. If WotC thought this, we probably wouldn't be using
it :^)
I'm still taking ideas and passing them on to the DC, too.
--
Marc Schmalz, aka Sparky!!
Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Team
spa...@castle.wizards.com
Jeremy York
the late date of announcement essentially made it a Seattle Area
regional.
After having played in my first *serious* sealed deck tournament
(have done any number of leagues), I must say I have mixed
feelings about it. It takes skill *and* luck to do well.
[But isn't that true of Magic as well? The best deck in the
world, played by the best player, can lose to a dumb schmuck
with a black vise or two given a bad shuffle.]
Yes, but bad luck in a shuffle and bad luck for a whole round of
a tournament are different things. It takes many repeats for
the luck factor to go away. Playing 2 out of 3 duels gets you
a little ways towards this. The new round-robin style of DC tournament
(3 duels each against 4 opponents) does much better in this
respect than single elimination. But with sealed deck play,
to geet an idea of how good a player is, you have to look
at their performance across several sealed deck tournaments.
Was that time they won 7 out of 12 matches the best that person
could ever manage, even with a great deck? Was it an amazing
performance given that they got a pile of junk to work with?
You can't tell until you see their performance in some other
tourneys...
It all depends on what you're playing for. Sealed deck is a lot
of fun, in my opinion, and I'd go out of my way to go to one. However,
it's not necessarily optimal for finding the best player.
Actually, I think the approach the DC is using for regionals
and nationals (combined type II and sealed deck) works reasonably
well. A star player should have the wits to do ok in the sealed
deck portion regardless of their cards. Notice I said "ok",
not "well". If she's really a star player, she should also
be capable of pulling off 10 wins in constructed deck play
(out of 12 duels). Add 6-7 wins in the sealed deck play
(she should manage this even with bad cards),
and you have a score which will likely be in the top 5-10.
(one reason for this is that the pairings in the round robin
are done swiss style - high scores paired agains high scores,
low against low - so few high scorers will accumulate huge
amounts of points).
Still, Scott has a point about duplicate play (using pre-constructed
decks). That would achieve many of the same goals as sealed
deck, without so much randomness in one event. However, it's
a logistical nightmare, so I can understand why it's not a part
of the standard tourney mix. I think it'd be a great approach
for WotC-administered events though. Punch holes in the cards
so no one wants to steal them...
--
Jeremy (bea...@netcom.com, bea...@delphi.com)
Paul J Paella
nationals. While I can accept Type III events being part of championship
events, I cannot accept the exclusion of Type I events. I beleive you should
have to show your skill in all possible environments, and excluding Type I
takes away a major portion of the game. I would prefer matches based on all
current magic Types (I - III).
As far as getting bad initial draws in a tournament...
My friends and I (all veteren Magic players) have been tossing around the
thoughts that when two very competitive players play against one another
the winner is -usually- the one who doesn't get a bad draw (which most of
the time means getting mana screwed).
We wanted to propose that each player could start with 2 basic lands in
his/her initial 7 card draw. You would take two basic lands from your
deck and reveal them to your opponent at the same time. You would then
draw 5 more cards and if you then had a hand of seven land, you could
reshuffle your deck and draw 5 more cards (keeping the original 2 basic
lands in your hand).
We have thought this out thouroughly and we don't see problems with it.
Some of the things considered when devising this method were:
1) Land destruction players would complain. Well, I play land destruction
religously and I personally don't see a problem with that.
2) This method would allow for more consistant early spell casting.
For example, I take 2 swamps out of my deck in anticipation of drawing
a Hymm to Tourach and casting it on turn two. No problem. I'd like to
see decks work they way they were designed.
3) But my opponent will know the colors I am playing when I reveal my 2
basic lands. I don't see much of a problem here, as you usually know
the colors he/she is playing with on turn 1 and 2 anyways.
4) But my deck doesn't contain any basic lands. Oh well, the price of
power. You cannot start with any cards in your hand then. Ever here
of Blood Moon?
All comments (good or bad) welcome.
gatek...@mystic-castle.com
>I agree with the comments about Type III (sealed deck) being apart of the
>nationals. While I can accept Type III events being part of championship
>events, I cannot accept the exclusion of Type I events. I beleive you should
>have to show your skill in all possible environments, and excluding Type I
>takes away a major portion of the game. I would prefer matches based on all
>current magic Types (I - III).
I agree...
>As far as getting bad initial draws in a tournament...
>My friends and I (all veteren Magic players) have been tossing around the
>thoughts that when two very competitive players play against one another
>the winner is -usually- the one who doesn't get a bad draw (which most of
>the time means getting mana screwed).
>We wanted to propose that each player could start with 2 basic lands in
>his/her initial 7 card draw. You would take two basic lands from your
>deck and reveal them to your opponent at the same time. You would then
>draw 5 more cards and if you then had a hand of seven land, you could
>reshuffle your deck and draw 5 more cards (keeping the original 2 basic
>lands in your hand).
In one of the groups I play in we already use this rule.... The only
difference is that if you want a multiland you only get one land and a
draw of six cards.
>We have thought this out thouroughly and we don't see problems with it.
>Some of the things considered when devising this method were:
>1) Land destruction players would complain. Well, I play land destruction
> religously and I personally don't see a problem with that.
>2) This method would allow for more consistant early spell casting.
> For example, I take 2 swamps out of my deck in anticipation of drawing
> a Hymm to Tourach and casting it on turn two. No problem. I'd like to
> see decks work they way they were designed.
>3) But my opponent will know the colors I am playing when I reveal my 2
> basic lands. I don't see much of a problem here, as you usually know
> the colors he/she is playing with on turn 1 and 2 anyways.
>4) But my deck doesn't contain any basic lands. Oh well, the price of
> power. You cannot start with any cards in your hand then. Ever here
> of Blood Moon?
If you look at some of the best of the newer CCG's they have delt
with this problem already....
My favorite example is Ultimate Combat! On any turn that you decline
to play a foundation ( thier equivalent of land )
The rules allow for a "replacement draw" Which you basically discard
as many cards as you want to and draw the same number from your
library. (Easy guys... Flame off...I know this won't work in magic)
This keeps the game balanced and you get to see who's strategy works
better. In my opinion it helps to remove one of the elements of luck.
>All comments (good or bad) welcome.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \
\ _____ ___ ___ ____ _ ___ __________________________________ /
/ / / / / __/_ _/_/ __/ / _\ \ \
\ / /_/ /\ /__ / / // / /_ \_/_/ 1875 South Bascom Ave / /
/ /_/ /_//__/___/ /_//_/___/ / Suite 116-190 / \
\ ___ ___ ___ ____ _ ___ \ Campbell, Ca 95008 \ /
/ / __/ / __/_ _/ / / __/ __\ (408) 364-0845 \ \
\ / /_/ ' /__ / / // /_/ _/ / \_\ VISA/MC/Checks/Money Orders \ /
/ /___/_/_/___/ /_//___/___/ \___/______________________________/ \
\ /
/ E-mail: gatek...@mystic-castle.com \
\ Web: http://www.mystic-castle.com/~cyber_mage/ /
/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \
\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/
Canticle
As retailers, we are encountering a large number of problems
related to the sale of Magic:The Gathering. As you are no doubt aware,
the largest problem is in terms of supply and demand...customers want far
more than we are capable of getting in stock. There are other concerns as
well, ones which we feel need to be addressed, although most of them are
related in part or in full with the supply aspect.
One of the biggest problems we, as retailers, are facing is
receiving stock at a price which will allow us to pass it on to the
consumer at MSRP. Not only are distributors shorting orders (on top of
the supply problems which exist already), but there are distributors who
charge an astronomical markup on product as well.
This isn't the only problem we face. Stores which have previously
had no experience with the gaming community are now jumping on the Magic
bandwagon, stocking a large amount of product which could have been on
the shelves of gaming stores. While WotC's desire to expand Magic into
areas beyond the 'RPG population' are admirable, the current situation is
harming stores which cater to both gamers and Magic fans. When we don't
have product, our competitors mark up their prices in an attempt to
exploit the shortage. The markup on cards in stores which don't sell
gaming related products is usually high to begin with.
We are also aware that Wizards of the Coast is currently
reviewing their distribution process, and we would like to make a few
suggestions which could, potentially, alleviate some of the distribution
and supply problems.
First, we believe that Magic:The Gathering and related products
should not be provided to distributors who do not also carry other WotC
related products (Ars Magica, the soon to be released Everway, and so
forth). This will _not_ prevent Magic from being sold to non gaming
related stores. What it will do, however, is give priority to those
stores which made Magic what it is today.
Second, we feel that distributors who are gouging the retailers
should be cut off. This will not only encourage fair pricing practise,
but also allow more product to be released to those distributors who are
not engaging in gouging practices.
Finally, it may be advisable to have some sort of sanctioning or
approval system for retailers. What this entails is a system whereby WotC
'approves' a store for the sale of product. Non approved stores would not
be prevented from purchasing product from distributors, but an approved
store would be one recognized by WotC as having fair pricing practises,
and perhaps priority for shipments from distributors. What this would do
is prevent the gouging which currently takes place among retail outlets.
From a personal perspective, I can offer this anecdote. Our store makes
it a policy to sell as close to MSRP as is possible. However, this means
that we sell out of Magic at a rate far beyond our ability to resupply.
As a result, when our competitor finds out that we have run out of Magic,
he immediately raises the prices on Booster Packs on Starter Decks to
$5.95 and $14.95 Canadian respectively. With an 'Approval' system, this
wouldn't happen...an 'Approved' store would have priority with the
distributors, and would be under a moral obligation not to engage in
gouging practises.
We would like to thank you for your time, and would appreciate a
response on the comments we have presented. As retailers, we want to
serve our customers to the best of our ability, and the current situation
with Magic:The Gathering is making this a near impossible task.
Sincerely,
Bill Maciura (CEO of the Aratar Management Corp.)
Jeff Franzmann (Internet Rep for Campaign Outfitters)
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
{}Jeff Scott Franzmann {} Twinkle, twinkle, little bat {}
{}Internet Representative {} How I wonder where you're at, {}
{}Campaign Outfitters {} Up above the world so high {}
{}Winnipeg, Manitoba {} Like a tea tray in the sky... {}
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Opinions expressed above are not those of Campaign Outfitters. They're mine
Paul J Paella
What exactly did that last post have to do with MtG Event types and
play balance?
Please, keep on topic.
Canticle (cant...@MBnet.MB.CA) wrote:
: Attn. WotC,
Jamie Wadell
I can't agree more that there is a huge problem with the distribution process
gouging the consumer at many levels. I would aprecitate it greatly if WotC
did something to protect us, the consumers who got MTG to where it is today.
Thank you
Jamie Wadell
--
David DeLaney
> First, we believe that Magic:The Gathering and related products
>should not be provided to distributors who do not also carry other WotC
>related products (Ars Magica, the soon to be released Everway, and so
>forth).
Side note: *why* does _everyone_ forget the Primal Order series, which IMNSHO
is one of the best RPAids out there? [If you haven't seen it yet - go find it.
You'll be impressed, I bet.]
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableURLAP
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Charles B. Martin
: UUUUhh,
: Please, keep on topic.
Unfortunately, I am not sure that WotC can do this. Creating an approval
system might be construed as price fixing, even though it is in the favor
of the consumer. I am not entirely sure of the laws or restrictions on
this, but that is definately what it would look like. As far as selling
only to distributers that stock other WotC products, that might be allowible.
(Can't see wht not.)
: : We would like to thank you for your time, and would appreciate a
Canticle
> Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes:
> > First, we believe that Magic:The Gathering and related products
> >should not be provided to distributors who do not also carry other WotC
> >related products (Ars Magica, the soon to be released Everway, and so
> >forth).
> Side note: *why* does _everyone_ forget the Primal Order series, which IMNSHO
> is one of the best RPAids out there? [If you haven't seen it yet - go find it.
> You'll be impressed, I bet.]
Whups! Actually, I haven't forgotten it...it just slipped my mind while I
was writing up the letter :). I have TPO (and I still think Siembieda was
being a little bit noxious w/ that lawsuit deal), and we keep it in stock
as well :).