RE: SPS Governance Proposal - Update Tournament Formatting and Reward Allocations
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
While there are certainly some positive steps incorporated here, I think there are too many flaws with this proposal. As a result, I plan to vote "no" so that the proposal can continue to get refined and a better version can be re-introduced in a few weeks:
#1. As @jacekw pointed out, it seems like this proposal incorporates multiple issues which complicates the process. Other people I have talked to also feel like this is a multiple issue proposal.
#2. This also puts the cart before the horse (or cart before the kittens) in that we should decide on some fundamental aspects of tournaments (regarding league gating and how top heavy or bottom heavy the prize distribution will be). I don't think it's possible to make an informed decision on allocating prize % per league, until we first determine who has access to each league's prize pool. For example, if we look at regular tournaments there's a BIG difference between 9.5% (1.5% + 3% + 3%+ 2%) of rewards to Silver when only Silver league can access it, versus if Silver and Gold league can access it, versus if Silver, Gold, Diamond, and Champion league can do so. At the moment, possibly due to an error, Diamond/Champion can enter regular Wild Silver tournaments for cheap. So when we look at Diamond/Champion league as a whole, do they have access to the prize pools of Diamond, Gold, AND Silver?
Also, if we do decide on gating, is it going to address the longstanding issue whereby after a season and players drop in league, that they may enter tournaments in the lower league for cheap before advancing to a higher league?
So I think we should table this current proposal and first do some votes on the fundamental building blocks (like league gating and distribution schemes for Top X) before allocating SPS %'s.
#3. The Classic category is something that no one (or very few people) asked for and isn't really a good compromise. Some players (like @torran and @psilence) complain that this is just the new version of Alpha. Alpha players complain that Classic is really for Beta and Untamed because there is no benefit to using Alpha cards rather than Beta. If we want to come up with a compromise, I think we should go back to the drawing board and come up with something better because the Classic category isn't very good.
#4. There are also some obvious errors with the existing proposal. For example, with Classic, why do Silver league and Gold league have the same distribution? You would think that a higher league (which requires more cards and more investment) would not have the same amount as a lower league.
In fact, it would be better if the league proportions be based on some quantitative factor. Even though the previous CP system had its share of flaws, at least it had a numerical basis (whereby prize totals were proportional to CP requirements which were based on what was needed to have full decks). This proposal (and also a few past SPS proposals) have just used arbitrary numbers to allocate between leagues.
For example, instead of CP we could use market value or just use BCX required as a metric.
@jakkal pointed out that the difference between regular foil and GF also seems to be off and I agree, given the higher cost and scarcity of gold foil cards.
--> So as a result, I hope that this proposal gets voted down so that we can take the best portions of the proposal and refine it for an improved iteration. I definitely agree that the tournament system needs an overhaul and needs some changes, but this current proposal is a chaotic jumble right now (unless you want to justify why two leagues should have the same shares despite one league requiring a lot more cards).
That being said, the GF/RF distribution can be discussed in another proposal.
The elimination of alpha and the increase for modern rewards (reb+cl) was the main issue this proposal is trying to tackle.
What happened to wild silver tournaments is a mistake already recogniced by clayborn.
#1. @clayboyn @eldon1 If this were a single issue proposal (which it is not, as @jacekw has pointed out), it could be structured as:
Which formats should be supported in tournaments?
And the proposal would be Rebellion, Modern, Wild, and Classic.
(Optionally you could also include %'s for each of them).
And then later proposals would deal with the % between foil types and the % between leagues.
But instead, the proposal includes many additional aspects including:
In fact, as both jacekw and @jakkal have pointed out, the proposal surreptitiously hides that this is a pretty massive shift from GF to regular, under the guise of "oh we're just getting rid of alpha" as eldon1 suggests.
eldon1 states that we could just refine rf/gf in a different proposal but if this passes, it becomes the entrenched status quo and there will be a lot of inertia making it hard to change. Think of it another way, if it's simply "we'll fix it in a later proposal" then why don't you just initially structure it as "90% GF and 10% to RF and we'll refine it later on?"
#2. I'm really interested to see what Alpha players actually think that Classic is a "compromise to 'alpha holders."
On the surface level it could appear that way but it doesn't take long to realize that any benefits to Alpha are quite minimal and the primary beneficiaries of Classic is Beta and Untamed.
#3. @davemccoy @clayboyn The more I think about it, I think we actually should be going in the opposite direction. Wild is actually problematic for various reasons.
I think a better approach (and one that actually IS a "compromise") would be:
A. Keep the 10% to Rebellion and 45% Modern (and do later votes for distribution between foil types, between leagues, and how top heavy or bottom heavy the prize distribution is for Top X).
B. Instead of 35% Wild and 20% Classic, do something like:
i. 5% Alpha, 5% A/B/U, 5% U/CL, 40% Wild
OR
ii. 5% Alpha, 5% A/B, 5% A/B/U, 5% U/CL, and 35% Wild
Open Wild format is often touted as a way to keep old cards relevant but the problems are two-fold:
Power creep means that newer cards will overshadow older cards
Chaos Legion and especially Rebellion were designed and playtested with only Modern (whatever was Modern at the time) in mind. How Chaos Legion and Rebellion might interact with older cards and what impact it would have on Wild were not considerations. As a result, Wild is a bit of a random mess.
So if you really want to let older cards maintain some use case, then it would be better to keep (on a SMALL scale) some of the older formats. And you don't have to give a lot in prizes (I definitely agree that Alpha prizing should be massively cut down).
REPOSTING MY REPLY (ps we have way to many places these convos are taking place :) )
Byz that's a lot of information to unpack. I like that you are trying to compromise by 1) reduction of alpha only and 2) by including the other older sets (they need love too). I don't agree with you on not including the Rebellion, I think adding Rebellion to be paired with the older sets will INCREASE participation and also increase the fun.
I realize this is a very tough vote to reach any kind of consensus on. I think coming up with more formats is one way to reach a compromise.
We all should be trying to have as much participation as possible, and encourage everyone to go for these prizes. While at the same time it would be necessary to have some of the older cards in these tourneys, so that would increase the utility of those cards as well (thus future demand).
@clayboyn is of course in charge of this process, but that's my opinion. I don't even know if you can amend the vote now before it goes live in game, but I'd be much more comfortable if we had something that you and @jacekw could agree to, but at the same time ended the MASSIVE imbalance we have now. That's why reaching out to the various parties is how best to reach a solution. Its better to have a solution that everyone gets something they want, and at the same time gave something in return.
Whether we have enough time and enough will to compromise on this is the question. I do support the principle of fixing what's broken, the question for me is will you guys compromise and accept that alpha only players need to accept less that what they were getting so that we can all move forward? If yes, then I would consider voting against this (if its too late to fix it), if no, then I think this proposal is way better than doing nothing.
ps. the conversation regarding leagues and foils is another topic as well, and I agree it should also be part of that conversation. But we need people to think in terms of growth overall for me to give validity to the POVs.
I don't really understand what this is about. My braincell was consumed in the other proposal. I just want to say something about this:
"if you really want to let older cards maintain some use case, then it would be better to keep"
Why won't we errata the older cards and buff it? I normally quote Yugioh regarding this. In Yugioh, they have a ban list for certain cards. While these cards are techncally useless since they cannot be used, some still collect it because there are times they were allowed. Raigeki, a card that destroy all opponent's monsters, were banned for like 2 years, I think, then suddenly, it became usable since more cards (after the 2 years) became resistant to destruction effects, therefore, indirectly nerfing Raigeki.
Same as here but the opposite. We can buff some cards and nerf the others. That way, everything is still relevant. Haunted Spirit, for example, if only I can use it in Modern, I would. It is a beta card but even until today, still I think is one of the strongest Death card due to his Heal ability.
So, while the power creep is true, it really isn't true on all cards. I still haven't found a better card than Cerberus for low mana Little League. Actually, even though he is a beta monsters, he even got better with Tarsa, from the Chaos Legion.
I feel like we should make things easy and I don't understand why we are trying to jump through hoops to over complicate things.
Use the KISS technique and go with 3 formats: Rebellion (Current Block), Modern (2 blocks), Wild (all cards).
I don't see a need for "Classic" at all. Alpha holders were already rewarded for YEARS with all the benefits that came with those exclusive tournaments (and don't get me started on the SPS airdrop!), and now those cards can all be used on lands, or in Wild! To say that would Alpha cards no longer have a purpose is completely disingenuous since the GOOD cards will still be played in wild! I don't know of anyone who would say that owning Master of Waves, Lord of Darkness, or Spirit of the Forest doesn't give them a competitive advantage over those who don't have them, and therein lies their continued value. I feel like I've been saying this forever: Good cards are good, bad cards are bad. You don't want to create formats just to artificially add value to cards like "Animate Corpse" which are just outclassed these days.
The whole premise of "classic" existing to keep older sets relevant (or something?) is flawed, as that the cards are still playable in wild (see above). In less than a year from now when the new set comes out, Chaos Legion will rotate into it allowing the masses to play in this "classic" format anyways which certainly doesn't make it "classic" anymore.
It's not flawed because power creep is evident in Rebellion. It could be worse, but it's definitely there, and realistically there will be more of it in any upcoming mini set + future main sets. I think early investors deserve to have the chance to remain competitive in at least one format if they put thousands into the game, without being expected to spend more every year or two. They might have some strong Alpha or Untamed cards but not have spent anything on Rebellion or CL and therefore even with LOD or SOTF they might lack enough cards to keep up with Rebellion's meta changing abilities. I say this by the way, as someone who only entered the game at CL so most of my deck is CL, but who has picked up quite a lot of Beta and Untamed cards yet only has a single Alpha card.