On points as a system for EDH brackets

[Oversoul]

I believe that I mentioned my position on EDH brackets in some other thread here. But I think that brackets could be good and a points system with different levels for each bracket would be even better. I'd been toying with the idea of expounding on this, and now here's a thread for that. Might still not get around to it, but the thread is here.

I'm actually posting this because I wanted somewhere to vent about a discussion on YouTube where my analysis wouldn't have fit, at least not elegantly.

I watched this video:

A little before the 37-minute mark, they started about two minutes of discussion on the possibility of a points system being implemented for WotC's upcoming EDH brackets, as well as the potential for players to "angle-shoot" by finding decks that qualify for a certain bracket per the rules, but which can play at a higher power level than most decks in the same bracket. I found this conflation to be a bit strange because I can't think of any reason that a points system is more vulnerable to angle-shooting than an unpointed system. I haven't done much theorycrafting on this topic, but I do find it interesting. My initial suspicion is that some systems would be more easily vulnerable to angle-shooting than others, but that no plausible system is going to be robust enough to stop determined players from angle-shooting. I'm tempted to say that any difference in vulnerability between systems is so minor as to be trivial, but I can't be sure of that. Might be worth discussing.

I commented on this oddity.

So, you think that people will angle-shoot a points system, but somehow not be able to do so in a flat "if it has one of these cards then it's in this bracket" deck tier system?

I didn't really expect any answer at all, but the potential was there for a clarification of these guys' position or for them to defend why they presented angle-shooting as a problem in the same breath as mentioning a points system.

No, nobody said that.

That's a very dissembling response, but I wanted to be polite to them, since I was commenting on their video in the first place. So I didn't just immediately call them out on dissembling.

I realize no one strung those exact words together in that exact order. But angle-shooting was only brought up here as an issue for a points system. If a points system isn't any more vulnerable to angle-shooting than any other system, then why raise it as an issue for a points system?

OK, maybe I couldn't resist calling them out just a little bit. But I think that I've got a point here!

That section was about saying the goal of any system should limit angle-shooting. That specific "Points" example was cited as an example, and notably, an example of WotC's. Kindly stop rewriting what actually happened. Thank you.

This response got to me a little bit. I've developed a pet peeve around people rather brashly demanding that others do something and then immediately thanking their interlocutors for complying with an order that probably isn't going to be followed anyway. I also never "rewrote" what anyone said and took umbrage with the accusation that I'd done so. I was going to make another response, but I got a bit carried away, eventually transcribing the entire two-minute discussion from the part of the video that was in question. I realized by then that my response was too long-winded for a YouTube comment section. So I stuck with something short and to-the-point.

I didn't rewrite a single thing. There's a banner that pops up with "Try to limit angle-shooting" at the same time that a points system is brought up in the video. Then there's about two minutes of discussion. The topic pretty quickly shifts away from angle-shooting and toward how points might be too complicated anyway, but it is in there. Angle-shooting isn't really brought up as a drawback for other systems either, although I cannot think of any reason that a points system would be any more vulnerable to it than any other system.

I'm not aware of WotC themselves explicitly connecting angle-shooting to a points system. Not saying they haven't done it. I just haven't seen it and still don't know the context for that. If this whole part of the discussion was in response to that, then fair enough. I'd like to know what that context is. I do realize that Joey said, "I think this is why Wizards of the Coast has expressed a lot of hesitancy over doing a points system the way that Canadian Highlander does their stuff." But I took that to mean that he was deducing why it is that he thinks they've expressed hesitancy, not a reference to some quote from them in which they have cited angle-shooting as an example of their hesitancy regarding a points system. Not that I doubt that they've done so. I'm just curious what that context actually was.

The vast majority of competitive, one-on-one formats throughout the history of the game have used a ban list and no points system. I can't think of a reason that points a points list would be inherently more competition-focused than a ban list.

I haven't gotten another response. Even if I'm not blocked, I suspect that I won't get one. The whole thing feels weird to me. I wasn't trying to score points in an argument or whatever. I legitimately don't understand the position that's being put forward here, but no details were really offered. I'm wondering if part of what's at play here is that different people work on the EDHRECast, and they might not have even talked with each other about this very much. Two of them involved in the actual discussion that I was commenting on, but there are at least two more people who work on the series in some capacity, and I have no idea which person I was actually talking to, nor whether the editor who put that big "angle-shooting" banner up on-screen is even the same one who was talking about a points system.

Anyway, I already transcribed this section of the video. Not wanting to let my several minutes of work go to waste, I'll throw it here and give my own thoughts. There were two people talking in the video. I'll color Joey's words in red and Matt's words in blue...

If at all possible, I hope that some type of system can attempt to limit the damage that can be done by people who are trying game that system or trying to angle shoot. Again, those types of players will always exist. I think this is why Wizards of the Coast has expressed a lot of hesitancy over doing a points system the way that Canadian Highlander does their stuff. They worry about people gaming that type of system so that they can, you know, shoot under it and still create, like, just a total ROFL-stomp type of deck for other people. That's obviously something that you want to try and limit if possible. I would love for some type of system to help avoid that, but they also understand that there's only so much you can do. And at the end of the day, there's a difference between a problem system and problem players, and if there's a social issue we should respond in a social way. No system is going to be able to prevent us from our responsibility for defending the experience that we want to have at the table when it comes to the problem players doing that type of stuff too.

It's still not obvious to me whether WotC has, at some point somewhere, dismissed a points system on the basis of angle-shooting. Joey could be referring to such a statement that he knows they made, or he could be inferring it based on something where they never actually said it. I don't know one way or another and at this point I'm not holding my breath for an answer on that.

Yeah, a points system is a noble thing and it works really well for Canadian Highlander and the playerbase the gravitates toward that. And the Professor at Tolarian Community College did a really good video and made very compelling arguments. I will give a ton of credit over to Prof for the video he put out there, but I think again it comes down to: are overcomplicating things? Are we requiring players who don't know how to talk about their own decks, are we requiring them to do too much homework? You know, to start playing Commander, which is the most played format in Magic: the Gathering. I think we can't overcomplicate things like that. Where Canadian Highlander, again, those players--I don't think anybody's like, "Oops, I'm playing Canadian Highlander. I'm playing Magic." That's just not how that format works. Whereas Commander, I think that folks absolutely do. And so I like the idea of a points system, but I think again, the biggest flaw comes down to so many of these systems that we've seen. It's putting too much homework for newer players to do.

Matt almost immediately steers the conversation away from angle-shooting and over to the concept of overcomplication. This is a bit frustrating because the end result is that almost the only thing ever said about angle-shooting is that first bit from Joey. They leave an "angle shooting" banner on the screen along with a page for "Canadian Highlander" (a format with a points system), but basically nothing from here on is actually about angle-shooting.

I've got a lot of things I could say about overcomplication, but the fact of the matter is that overcomplication and angle-shooting are totally separate problems.

Well, in Canadian Highlander where your only goal is to defeat one other person, Matt, I'll fight tooth-and-nail to do that in a one-on-one format. So gaming that system is the point of the points system. That's fun there. And there's a deckbuilding, you know, part of EDH that is also a big point of the format. But the point of EDH isn't to tear your opponents down as quickly as possible. It's about vibes. It's kind of a beer and pretzels format for a lot of people.

I did manage to squeeze this into my reply, for whatever that's worth. It feels so patently obvious as to almost be condescending to even bring up, but they kinda forced my hand? Points systems are uncommon in Magic formats. There are a few prominent examples (Canadian Highlander appears to be the most well-known). The vast majority of formats, including virtually all competitive formats, use a ban list and no other card restrictions except for the available card pool (usually this is which sets are legal in the format). Vintage also uses a restricted list on top if a ban list. But Legacy? Modern? Pioneer? Standard? Extended? Block Constructed? Historic? Explorer? Classic-Restricted?

At the risk of being even more obnoxiously obvious, there isn't something about a points system that rules it out for casual play or makes it more competitive than a system without points. Clearly tournament Magic can be maximally competitive without using a points system. And clearly casual players are capable of using a points system.

Yeah, it's a social format. It's not a competitive format. And I think that is a huge, huge thing that needs to be kept in mind where we're all about encouraging social interactions whether it's through the gameplay, whether it's through the pregame conversations. You have to be social to do this.

This just seems like another topic shift. I'm not going to go back and watch the full hour-long video right now, but I'm wondering if I'm only now realizing that the whole video was full of this sort of thing...