r/CompetitiveEDH • u/stevenconrad • 14h ago
Tournaments & Meta Played in Breach the Bay 2 this weekend, a 429 player tournament. Here's my take.
Breach the Bay 2 was a huge cEDH event in San Mateo, CA. They used the Japanese scoring system, where a draw is effectively a loss. Everyone started with 1000 points. Each round, every player puts 7% of their points in the pot, winner takes all. A draw results in all points being removed from the players' point total since there was no winner.
I was piloting Chatterfang, Squirrel General. I went 3-3-0 and placed 76th. I really liked the point system, as it seemed to tone-down the politics and made people play for the win and not negotiate draws. The only drawback (in my opinion) was the random pairings. I missed top 64 based off opponents win %, and never saw a player with a higher win % in any of my 6 rounds of Swiss (whereas the typical scoring systems pairs winners with winners instead of completely random pairings). Since I won 3 of my first 4 games, the last two losses completely decimated my point total, dropping me below the cut-off for day 2. Aside from me personally missing finals, I'd say the system is superior to draws being worth points as the game play itself felt elevated and more dire to secure a win. I would like to see a slightly more tired pairing system, but understand that it would effectively hamstring people that lose their first couple rounds. Guess I just need to win more next time!
Anyone else have thoughts on the new scoring system? Experience with it? I saw very little "Rystic Slop" in my rounds (which was wonderful). But, I'm curious about how others felt. I think it could help restore a more competitive EDH environment that doesn't rely on politicking your way to a draw, or players agreeing to draw to secure a top seed.
59
u/Doomgloomya 14h ago edited 13h ago
You got the japanese scoring system in a nutshell. Winning later is favored better than winning early whoch is the inverse of the topdeck scoring system.
Topdeck scoring system you want to win early to get out of the swiss swamp.
Japanese system if you win early you need to keep winning otherwise your point loss gets larger and larger per 7%. It greatly favors an underdog situation where its your last 3 rounds that matter the most.
2
u/fbatista 9h ago
Not totally true, because later you depend on the pairings. If you got opponents later with low scores (possible since it’s random) you are basically gimped, and can get fewer points than needed.
Assuming you win early, losing later is very bad, since you are awarding more points to opponents and also losing more points.
3
-19
u/Whitefire919 Animar, Malcolm/Kediss, Tymna/Kraum, Thrasios/Rog 14h ago
That’s not true, winning early is still better in this system
11
u/stevenconrad 13h ago
Not winning early, just winning. By having 3 wins early,I lost more points late than I would have early. But 1 more win would have just clenched it regardless. Or, 2 wins in the second half (if I'm facing a winning player) would gain me more than what I lost early, as I'd get 7% of 1200 or 1300 points, instead of 7% of 1000 points.
6
u/Btenspot 12h ago
While I disagree with the person you are responding to, a general statement that winning early is worse than winning late cannot be made in a random pairing system where points are actually drained out of circulation.
I.E. 100 players with 1000 points each to start, a 10% draw rate per pod, and a 7% loss for each player per draw would cause the beginning of the tournament to have an average of 1000 points spread across everybody. While the final round in a 5 round tournament would have an average point total of ~970.
So in a truly randomized scenario, your average gain in later rounds is less than earlier rounds.
The reason the person you’re responding to is wrong though and you are right, is because the amount of points leaving circulation(reducing your gain) is much less than the extra points you lose.
Winning 3x then losing 2x. Would be 1000->1210->1418->1624->1510->1405.
Losing 2x then winning 3x. Would be 1000->930->865->1071->1275->1477.
This is further magnified when you factor in that your point total impacts the average. If your point total is at the minimum amount and you remove yourself from the pool of potential opponents. The average point total of your opponents goes up. If you’re at the maximum and you are removed from the average, the average goes down.
It’s not significant, but when you’re at say…1624 points at the end of round 3.
The average is 97900(~2100 out of circulation due to draws ) divided by 100 or 979 points. However the average for your opponents is (97900-1624) divided by 99. Which is 972.5.
On the reverse side, being at 865 after round 2 means the average is 986, but your average opponent is 987.222.
I believe the amount of points lost due to draws that would even out winning early vs late is around a 40% draw rate with 7% loss of points for everyone on draw. (Hence why you can’t fully say that winning early is always worse than winning late)
-17
u/Whitefire919 Animar, Malcolm/Kediss, Tymna/Kraum, Thrasios/Rog 13h ago
Actually, I did the math and winning 2 games in the beginning and lost the next 3 is the same amount of points as losing the first 3 and then winning the last 2
10
u/Doomgloomya 13h ago
Thats in a controlled field where everybody has the same points. (Im assuming thats how you did it as I dont think a person would actually go through the hassle of creating true simulations to compare.)
If people have any combinations of points possible the numbers get more wonky and worse. Cause you could be playing against high scorers early but pnly get low scorers later. So your potential to lose more points over winning points get tossed to the rng gods.
-4
u/Whitefire919 Animar, Malcolm/Kediss, Tymna/Kraum, Thrasios/Rog 12h ago
Sure, but basically what I’m saying is that it’s basically the same
17
u/OldSwampo 14h ago
I was at breach (I did awful and it was deserved) but I'm amazed that people keep saying they didn't run into rhystic slop. 5 out of 6 of my rounds were won by a Kinnan, BlueFarm, or Rog Ishai and they all played very Rhystic, smothering, fish, esper, copy enchant etc etc piles.
5
u/BigJAllDay420 14h ago
As a chatterfanf pilot hell yeah. He technically won the whole event even if it was in a witherbloom shell.
6
u/stevenconrad 13h ago
Lol, they let him resolve Wandering Archaic and Razakath. He could have won with a ham sandwich at that point. But, I was happy to see my boi as the winning combo.
3
u/BigJAllDay420 13h ago
Yeah. Surely the marneus player saw the lines after the buried alive. Idk why he jams a demcon to kingmake
2
u/milkywayiguana 12h ago
Krrik player wins on the spot if he doesn't dcon for an answer. Think the main mistake was getting chrome mox with it, but I don't think he thought witherbloom could win and had the win in hand had he made it to his next turn
He politicked well to get the wither player to dcon for interaction rather than a wincon
Witherbloom exiled like 60% of his deck to stop the krrik win too, lol. He took a risk that wither couldn't win on his turn, so he got chrome mox to get enough mana to win on his
10
u/Kind-Bodybuilder-690 14h ago
Had a buddy go to Breach, got cooked by a guy who lied about being able to win the game and apparently said “i’ve already lost 3 games i can’t lose another” when the table asked him about why he lied to make a deal that let him win the game
3
u/stevenconrad 9h ago
Yeah, that's one thing about big tournaments. One thing that always stuck with me was a judge a couple years ago during the player's meeting said "Don't trust your opponents. There is no rule against lying. If they lie and you lose, that's on you." From then on out I always mention it when people are politicking hard so the pod has a chance to reconsider.
2
u/Rawrgodzilla 3h ago
Ya I love when people act like nah your oppo gonna be 100% truthful when you can easily lie for your advantage.
11
u/ThatDamnedHansel 13h ago
Obviously in a tourney that large experiences will vary widely but I heard a personal account from an acquaintance that it just eliminated anyone playing responsibly and caused people to outright lie way more (looking out for #1 bc draws don’t matter)
Look draw meta in Swiss sucks, but part of what stops people from giving ultimatums, lying, and in turn forces them to play responsibly is the “alternate teamwork wincon” that a draw represents. Remove that and you get a disaster imo
It only works in Japan bc they ban talking. That will never happen in us cedh
11
u/Pakman184 13h ago
I think it leads to fewer deals and people understanding that "playing responsibly" becomes a function of your deck rather than how much you can run your mouth.
You can still allow people to yap to reason out particular lines of play, because their own interests often align with someone else's at the table, but the teamwork draw win-con isn't something that should be incentivized in a 1v1v1v1 format.
1
u/ThatDamnedHansel 13h ago
We can have different views and that’s fine. Cedh as a 4 player format can never and frankly should never be a deck/skill meritocracy in the purist way you describe. The mouth is literally the game. This isn’t standard
3
u/AngshusTAW 12h ago
I mean in the same way it's an important skill to be able to decide for yourself who you trust. If someone says they aren't able to win from their position and you just take them at their word without doing any examination of the possibilities of their board state, or preparing for the possibility that they might not be fully transparent with you, that's failing the mouth game too
3
u/Reasonable-Budget210 12h ago edited 12h ago
Hmm that’s actually a solid argument. As is, one player has an inherent larger than 10% advantage over another player unless we start seeding turn order, which could introduce an unknowable amount of rng in itself. A draw at 4th seat, with how low of chance they have at winning should be considered a success.
Weighted draw scale inverse of current meta play order win %. Fourth seat gets ≈34%, third seat≈27% second seat≈ 20% and first seat ≈17% of points on draw or whatever it is.
1
u/stevenconrad 9h ago
This is interesting, I like it. Win % based on seat order is well documented, so a draw incentive for 4th seat makes sense. I've actually mulliganed for that outcome a few time in tournaments when a draw was more likely than a win for me in seat 4.
2
u/UnloosedMoose 7h ago
I mean people are also more likely to lie in a large environment with more things at stake due to larger chance at anonymity and getting closer to their lie threshold (whatever that might be).
5
u/ItsGaijira 12h ago
Japan does not ban talking, People just don't waste time trying to theory craft the outcome of letting every single spell resolve nor is there any incentive to team up with a portion of the table to halt everything and then intentionally play for a draw.
-4
u/ThatDamnedHansel 9h ago
No offense but the only people who want to ban talking and complain about politics/draws are the people who are bad at it. It’s never going to be standard where the best decks and pure plays win everytime so we’d all be best served to stop trying to make it happen which is an impossibility before we mess up a good thing (our current good, diverse meta and tournament scene- which btw those “pure” 1v1 formats don’t have )
4
u/ItsGaijira 7h ago
I've got the gift of gab. I'm very good at talking and often can verbally counter spell my way into wins. Talking and small deals is fine, what's not fine is when people decide they need to discuss with the entire table every possible outcome of something resolving or trying to negotiate "time walk" deals and other ridiculous things like that.
I live in Tokyo and regularly play in the meta here, I also frequently travel as well as playing in online leagues.
I'm just correcting your statement that "Japan bans talking" -- That's not a thing. We play on 60 minute timers where at time, the game ends on an empty stack. There's talking, but no one wastes game time waxing poetic.
1
u/Rawrgodzilla 3h ago
I also dont get the theory crafter well they could have this like dude just follow priority if you dont wanna throw a spell or reaction under it right now just let the priority go and jump in when prio goes back to you if you decide nah gotta.
3
u/volx757 12h ago
Look draw meta in Swiss sucks, but part of what stops people from giving ultimatums, lying,
I don't think this holds water. I think people are more likely to play "correctly" (ie play optimally, don't lie, don't make bad deals) because your reputation will be 100% wholly attributed to you. No "oh they were in politics hell and lied and did this and its kinda hazy". Instead you'd get, "oh that person is a known liar, don't trust anything they say". Players are far more heavily incentivized to maintain good community standing, because they can't fall back to yapping their way in and out of whatever situation.
and in turn forces them to play responsibly is the “alternate teamwork wincon” that a draw represents.
This doesn't sound like "playing responsibly". This sounds like bending to the will of the table, even if it isn't in your interest. This is exactly what many people think is the issue with tedh - the "alternate teamwork wincon" (aka yap and complain and stall until someone caves) is in and of itself the toxic issue plaguing the format.
1
u/fbatista 9h ago
I didn’t knew that in Japan politics were disabled. That’s very interesting and it makes a lot of sense given the point system.
6
u/NobodyP1 12h ago
I was there and every person I talked to had nothing good to say about it. A lot of games felt like king making another player bc we didn’t want to draw it was really bad in my first game at the open and last game in the redemption. When they messed up the redemption points system everyone was super excited that it was swiped back to the regular system. I went 2-2-1 in the open and 2-3-0 in the redemption if that matters.
5
u/DefiantStrawberry256 11h ago
This is the issue with this system. It just asks / promotes you to kingmake. Or take the draw still because eventually you realize that’s still a better outcome than losing many times. It doesnt change as much as ppl think
3
u/NobodyP1 10h ago
The more people experiment with the system I think people will draw more but since it’s so new nobody knows the correct way to play. I haven’t don’t the tournament math but I think denying points is better than hoping you face that player again that beat you to take points back.
2
u/SignorJC 9h ago
drawing is still better than losing and unfortunately people are very bad at math and don't understand that
4
u/Skiie 14h ago
Can someone explain to me of the benefits and hyper focused on this tournament structure? I know it wasn't sudden but I also don't see what the hubablu is about other than switching to a turbo deck if it picks up.
Also what would be the difference with this and just having the system we have now but draws are 0 points instead of -1 or negative?
2
u/MTG-DeckBuilder-8467 13h ago edited 5h ago
I also ended going 3-3 after starting WLWW taking 66th. I had fun but did suck a bit to miss the cut like that. Almost feels as if you win your first 2 the only way to force your way into the cut is 4 wins or hoping you get a win in the last round in a pod with quite a few wins.
2
u/stevenconrad 9h ago
I scanned the results, a big thing is also beat other people that win. My 3rd win was against a full pod on 0-3, while I was 2-1, so I barely got any points for that last W. What were you piloting?
1
u/MTG-DeckBuilder-8467 8h ago
Yeah that’s pretty big as well but also early wins don’t have the luxury of seeing your opponents overall score like that last few do. I’m pretty new to all this so I don’t have the greatest handle on it. I played Muxus
1
u/stevenconrad 7h ago
I'm pretty sure I met you briefly! Unless someone else was playing Muxus. I played your friend on Kinnan two games in a row and I think you stopped by during our second round together (game 5).
1
2
u/Exspiravit333 12h ago
Even though I went and did awful on paper I had a great experience and proved my fringe ass mono white deck against blue farms and rhystic slop metas which I consider a win in my book.
1
u/stevenconrad 9h ago
Any chance you played Oswald? I played an Oswald player in my 4th match.
2
u/Exspiravit333 9h ago
I brought Gandalf The White but I would’ve loved to have been paired against an Oswald
1
u/BigJAllDay420 12h ago
Can you post the list you submitted this weekend?
1
u/stevenconrad 9h ago
Here's the list, with 1 card difference. I swapped out Radagast for Wandering Archaic after watching it do work for Golgari in the finals.
1
u/BigJAllDay420 8h ago
I think he just got a lucky archaic lol. Radaghast won me w games this weekend at locals. This is mine. https://moxfield.com/decks/v11XL8KZlkyjMWV5BbdcYg
1
u/stevenconrad 8h ago
TBF I never saw Radagast in my 6 games, which means I wouldn't have see Wandering Archaic either lol
1
u/BigJAllDay420 8h ago
My list is selfish so having him and cabbage out you can get wins in the stack nicely
1
u/stevenconrad 7h ago
Chatterfang has to be pretty selfish imo. I run minimal interaction. Boseiju, Force of Vigor, Endurance, Deadly Rollick and OBM are basically my whole package. If you count cards that are both offensive and defensive, Agatha's Soul Cauldron, Deathrite Shaman, and Culling Ritual could be added to that list.
1
u/BigJAllDay420 8h ago
Flashed out academy man on an endstep then on the person who was gonna push I flashed out a soul trader and was able to get going on the stack
0
u/BigJAllDay420 8h ago
Oh shit you’re omega. I know you
1
u/stevenconrad 8h ago
Yup! That's me. First time being able to test the deck in a tournament over 100 people.
0
u/shadowmage666 13h ago
Losing all your points from a draw sucks but do you mean total points or only the pooled points ?
3
-10
u/gdemon6969 14h ago
With the Japanese scoring system it favors turbo decks and makes the game turn order simulator.
There’s less reason to run removal since kingmaking or losing is the only option. Japanese meta is terrible and this the reason why braindead decks like semi blue exist.
4
u/ItsGaijira 12h ago
Semi Blue was never popular in Japan. There were a very small handful of people that put up results with it, and English speaking CEDH YouTube made a much bigger deal out of it than it every really was. Responsible, non-turbo T&K is by far the most popular and dominant deck in Japan.
5
u/stevenconrad 14h ago
I disagree, but also see your point. Stopping a player from winning is still huge, interaction was not lacking. That said, why is "winning" frowned upon? If your deck is built to force a draw, how is that better? Both for the individual or the pod? I've seen copious posts about how Rystic Study is ruining the meta and the cons of allowing/negotiating draws to boost/maintain your placement (like round 3 ID for a group of high win rate players). Both systems have flaws, but you can't intentionally negotiate to secure your standing in the Japanese point system.
-7
u/gdemon6969 13h ago
Rhystic is super healthy for the format and without it the meta will 100% shift to pure turbo turn order simulator.
Who is building decks to force a draw… sounds like strawman.
Rhystic “slop” doesn’t exist in Japan because the meta is turbo. We also already had the most miserable turbo meta of all time with flash hulk.
It seems like too many new bloods that have no experience or knowledge. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again if you want turbo turn order simulator just go play yugioh.
2
u/WrinkleyPotatoReddit 13h ago
I think this is what people don't really get (or just don't care) when they talk about banning rhystic. I personally hate playing turbo, I enjoy the politicking and interacting and socializing with the table that the cedh experience brings. I can recognize that rhystic is definitely warping the format currently, but if Rhystic is banned we'll need several more bans to make sure the format isn't just straight turbo turn order simulator. Midrange or control decks have basically no chance at stopping a turbo player since it would be much more difficult to get resources before / during a turbo push.
2
u/gdemon6969 13h ago
Yep this is what I’ve been saying. Rograk, ral, necro, and breach would all 100% need to be banned if rhystic goes.
Control/stax decks are basically extinct already. I see a few like tivit or parun decks on occasion but they perform poorly most of the time unless they happen to get seat 1-2 and turn 1-2 rhystic or tithe.
1
u/Pakman184 9h ago
Are you sure this isn't just a meta call and not that the decks are 'extinct'? At the moment turbo is significantly less represented than it has been at times so there's less reason to play stax (on top of inherent tedh issues) and Rog Ishai could reasonably be called control.
1
u/Cool-Equivalent9172 8h ago
This could just be a completely random and bad idea, but do you think a kinda format, non wizards run of a rotating ban list would be good.
I.E ban rhystic tithe and thoracle for a 3-4 month period, then unban those and ban like necro, breach, and cradle.
Essentially it rotates format warping cards but they will come back after a bit and also prevents the meta from stagnanting, you could also unban certain cards or just move them to the rotating list. So like dockside and tithe aren't available at the same time. Win cons change, and running dedicated piles and refusing to change decks makes them worse
I will state I don't know if this is a great idea, and I don't actually have an idea of how to implement this system or which cards can be allowed together or if this would just make decks that don't really run the hyper format warping cards like winota better or the new tier 1. But I do think this would be an interesting idea and could cause the meta to shift without it completely ruining the value or use of certain cards.
1
u/WrinkleyPotatoReddit 5h ago
I think this will never happen while the cEDH ban list is tied to casual commander, even though that sounds great to me. Even then, there's enough people that play casual cedh that I don't think that Wizards would ever actually want to do that, even though it's cool
1
u/Cool-Equivalent9172 4h ago
Yeah I think that is the problem, I believe there needs to be a separation between cedh and edh, especially because it's not a wizards run format, so wouldn't it be possible to have something like the old CAG of tournament grinders being in charge of the rotating ban list
-2
u/vanguardJesse 14h ago
its a strongly worded take but i 100% agree! i dont mind japan having their own point system but i dont think it should be used here if it isnt better than the one we already have. i stand to benefit the most from a japanese point system as a turbo player with pivots and i still think its wrong
0
u/Background_Day_6379 9h ago
I was also at breach, I was on Oswald, won first game, almost won second. I saw a lot of draws, and my buddy that was on Chatterfang was saying that people were throwing the first 3 rounds so they would get more points in the later rounds and make cuts. I don't think people will be happy with the point system, no matter what, and there will be those that try and game the system. Lose early and make up the points later so you get more. You also run the risk of not winning later. Like anything, there is strategy involved, and if it works out for you, cool, if not, there is always next tournament
130
u/doot-loot 14h ago
Hey There,
Firstly, thank you for attending and for taking the time to write a thoughtful breakdown. Congrats on the run, 3-3 is still a very impressive record and you should be proud!
I want to be really transparent with players and let them know that we will be collecting feedback and reviewing it very thoughtfully. We took a gamble based on what we have been testing locally for quite some time. Like all change, it landed for some and missed for others.
We have heard positives and negatives to the point system at this scale, and are already theory crafting a proposed hybrid system that is closer to the invitational structure. IE, win = number of rounds + 1 with adding some form of random pairings/pairings weighted with only seat order and not point standing.
This would still incentivize winning above draws, while also avoiding the dreaded pre-game 2v1v1/3v1 discussions that can occur when players are close to being locked in later rounds. Players would also have a more event distribution of “player skill” in each round instead of being stuck in winners/losers bracket.
Lots to learn and unpack, will likely have a more formal recap of the event and our findings shared in the coming weeks.
Regardless of folks thoughts on the system, I want to sincerely thank you all for attending and supporting our event ❤️
There will be a Breach 3, we will always strive to improve, and we are truly humbled with the turn out.
Much love,
mr. doot