How Should Wizards Recognize Unsanctioned Tournament Data?

[Smmenen]

Assuming that Wizards has a responsibility for the health of Vintage, it is simply impossible for them to ignore important, if not absolutely critical data that comes from huge proxy events.  Yet wizards has a long standing anti-proxy policy (with good business reason, imo).  Given the fact that they can't endorse proxy events, what is the best way for them to take this data into account in there analysis?

Kevin posted this question I posed on SCG here: http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=297429#297429  and the response was pathetic.

[Windfall]

All of the players don't want them to ignore it, but as we all know, Wizards ranks Type 1 somewhere between a cockroach and that white stuff that accumulates at the corners of your mouth when you're really thirsty.  Just my opinion.

Some day, when Wizards makes money off Type 1, they'll start to think about it.  Here's the way I look at it - I started playing Type 1 with white-bordered power.  Sooner or later I desired black-bordered power.  Then I wanted foils.  Etc.  Sooner or later, people with no power will get sick of playing Ancestral Recall scribbled on an Island or whatever.  Then they'll buy the real thing.

The problem is not the proxy.  The problem is the price of power, and the price of power is due to lame dealers like Dave and Adam's Card World that have about 100 of each piece from Unlimited, Beta, and Alpha.  Cases and cases of power so the price is about 100 or 200 higher than it needs to be.  You know what I'm sayin'?

     ~Mark B.

[dandan]

I think it is clear that Wizards are monitoring Starcitygames and TMD and, given there record over the last 18 months or so in improved coverage/B&R/Legacy/new cards for Vintage, it is clear that they do have a good understanding of the Vintage scene. Indeed most of the calls of 'Are they crazy? Don't they know that XYZ will break Type I? Do these people understand the format at all?' have been answered by a very clear YES if we are honest. Can we say the same of many of the proposals put forward by individuals here?

Ask yourself the question? When was the last time Wizards siad they can't do something because of a lack of popular support for Vintage and used official DCI tournament figures as justification? I believe it was way back when Gush was considered a bad card, despite Wizards saying it wasn't. We all make mistakes folks and Wizards seems to have learnt from theirs.
At present their hands are tied about official support (although a SCG tournament report on Magicthegathering could be considered support) but I think few doubt that Wizards know who Phil Stanton and Zherbus are.

P.S. Remember that 2005 is the year that Zherbus goes to the Invitational for the first time.

I don't think we can expect an 'official' system for using unofficial tournament data whilst the current no proxy policy is in place. A change to this policy would probably be best served by lobbying your local shops/dealers rather than Wizards. If Wizards become convinced that proxies will not hurt their customers (that means their retail outlets) they are far more likely to change their policy. I hope it is clear that Wizards have already 'bent' the rules about reprints on a number of occasions and have invented a whole slew of card types (foil, no text, horrible new card layout) that fall outside the reprint policy. How pimp would a no text foil Time Walk be?

[Covetous]

On a practical level, almost by definition, Wizards can't do anything with data from unsanctioned tourneys.  Their non-proxy policy is at the same time completely reasonable yet completely stupid.  At this point, every piece of power (or any other single) sold makes them exactly $0.00 directly (I don't want to debate hidden profits or past profits).  So, why should they care about type 1?  Who buys packs for the purpose of getting 4 copies of the one or two cards in a set that they need for vintage?  So, Wizards does not get any monetary benefit from our community (i.e. vintage players).  Therefore, they have no reason to bother with us and our unsanctioned proxy tourneys.  But, since most people would only proxy old, hard-to-get cards, whether or not they allow proxies (or only sanction non-proxy events) doesn't impact their direct sales, and possibly would increase tourney revenues.  So, my point is that while allowing proxies in sanctioned tourneys doesn't directly benefit Wizards (and thus they have no reason to allow proxies), allowing proxies doesn't hurt Wizards either and could potentially increase profits from tourneys.

[Methuselahn]

I don't understand the question.  If we are assuming that they have a responsibility for proxy Vintage (because that is what it is) then what is the problem with the standard method of looking at T8s for degeneracy?

[Revvik]

I don't understand the question.  If we are assuming that they have a responsibility for proxy Vintage (because that is what it is) then what is the problem with the standard method of looking at T8s for degeneracy?

Wizards, as a company, cannot publicly acknowledge in any way shape or form proxy tournaments.  Doing so is very bad for very obvious reasons.  Using tournament data run from, say a ten-proxy tournament in Ohio, is probably also taboo.

As far as Wizards doing proxy tournaments goes (pure speculation, I'm guessing this has about as much chance of happening as Scarlett Johansson reading me poetry by moonlight), they could only allow proxies of power only.

Not everyone plays Drains, not everyone plays Workshops, but pretty much every deck that can run them runs Moxen, or blue power.  This way, Wizards can hold Type 1 tournaments, make money off a Pro Tour-style format, start taking top-8s and tournament result data, and take a bigger part in the shaping of Type 1.

[Dante]

I don't understand the question.  If we are assuming that they have a responsibility for proxy Vintage (because that is what it is) then what is the problem with the standard method of looking at T8s for degeneracy?

Wizards, as a company, cannot publicly acknowledge in any way shape or form proxy tournaments.  Doing so is very bad for very obvious reasons.  Using tournament data run from, say a ten-proxy tournament in Ohio, is probably also taboo.

I think some people are confused about the issue.  WotC can acknowledge the existence of proxy tournaments - One of their high profile guys went to SCG3 - Chicago, then wrote a report on it that went up on wizards.com (edit - Aaron Forsythe http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/af39).  What they don't do is endorse or publicize those events at all, for obvious good reason.

But there is a big difference between not marketing/publicizing/endorsing and completely ignoring or denying the existence of (ala X-Files).

And I'm fine with this stance for now - only publicize the big Sanctioned tournaments (like Gencon), but still have the DCI look at the results of all tournaments.  And if you think the DCI doesn't take into account proxy tournament top 8s and results when making decisions (or non-decisions), ....well, you're wrong.

Bill

[Milton]

1) Wizards has come a long, long way in the past four years.  
2) The notion that Wizards doesn't support T1 or doesn't care about T1 is false.  They just want people playing Magic... whatever the format.
3) The notion that Wizards doesn't make any money off T1 is a joke.
4) Wizards has noticed us, has done some great things for us and is to be thanked.

To answer the original question, though, I think Wizards is really not even an entity that can have a single policy on something as complex as T1.  Wizards is not just Wizards.

-They have R&D designing new sets.
-They have marketing people that try to sell the product to retailers.
-They have other marketing people that coordinate big events, like GenCon.
-They have the DCI.
-They have the people that run the website.

There are so many people involved that it would be impossible to say that there is a concrete Wizards policy on anything other than what is clearly stated, such as the no reprint or no proxy policy.  

Is there anything that says that the marketing guys can't work with the GenCon guys to get some proxy tournaments, unsanctioned, at GenCon?  I don't think so.  Is there anything that says that the R&D guys can't make sets that drastically alter our metagame?  Nope (other than the reprint policy)

And I doubt that there is any stated policy about not discussing proxy tournaments that have already occurred or are occuring on their website.  I guess I could be wrong, but I don't think there is one guy in a suit somewhere making a set "policy" on what can and can't be talked about on their website.

Having said that, Wizards really doesn't need to pimp the T1 scene.  That's what TMD and Starcity do.  And I honestly feel that TMD and Starcity, as sites run by fans and players, can be more honest and frank and brutal than some official website run by the company.

The only real reason you would want Wizards to begin tracking concrete data about our format is if you wanted to change existing policy, such as the no proxy or reprint list (or the BR list!).  For most of us, we don't need that policy changed.  We just live with what we have, and our format flourishes.

[Smmenen]

I think it is clear that Wizards are monitoring Starcitygames and TMD and, given there record over the last 18 months or so in improved coverage/B&R/Legacy/new cards for Vintage, it is clear that they do have a good understanding of the Vintage scene. Indeed most of the calls of 'Are they crazy? Don't they know that XYZ will break Type I? Do these people understand the format at all?' have been answered by a very clear YES if we are honest. Can we say the same of many of the proposals put forward by individuals here?

Ask yourself the question? When was the last time Wizards siad they can't do something because of a lack of popular support for Vintage and used official DCI tournament figures as justification? I believe it was way back when Gush was considered a bad card, despite Wizards saying it wasn't. We all make mistakes folks and Wizards seems to have learnt from theirs.
At present their hands are tied about official support (although a SCG tournament report on Magicthegathering could be considered support) but I think few doubt that Wizards know who Phil Stanton and Zherbus are.

Wizards does not read the mana drain, but they do read SCG.  Additionally, Aaron Forsythe has mentioned me specifically in his articles multiple times.

[nataz]

Stroke

Sorry, but it was hard not to say something. Plus the fact that rosewater and randy both have mentioned reading online forums to see reactions in the type I player base.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I don't see the problem the question seems to presume exists. Just because they don't sanction the events doesn't mean they can't look at the results when we show them what happened. We know they read SCG articles, so they see the aggregate results Z and I present (Forsythe even linked to me, I think in March). I don't think there's any doubt that they see what's happening and consider it, even if we're outside the DCI---just look at the cards they bring up in the restriction announcement followups, and the reasons for what they decide.

So what's the problem?

[mbcrules1]

Is our believe T1 organized play on a nation wide background is very much possible. The folks at www.CreativeGamingEvents.com (Psa Invitational organizers) came up with alternative organized play with the goal of going world wide.

Wizards may cooperate or try to kill the project. Either way, the struggle continues... it is clear to us that organized play for T1 is long overdue.

[FORCE-OF-WILL]

Though I'm sure no one will belive me, I have a VERY good guess that
the feelings of Wotc about this format as of the end of the year are as follows: They DO care about the format. They ARE designing cards with us in mind. They will NEVER hold proxy events. They DO care about proxy results.
 And best of all they are working on a "gp" system for this format and for 1.5.

[Nazdakka]

Though I'm sure no one will belive me, I have a VERY good guess that the feelings of Wotc about this format as of the end of the year are as follows: They DO care about the format. They ARE designing cards with us in mind. They will NEVER hold proxy events. They DO care about proxy results.

All true IMO. WoTC can't sanction proxy events for commercial reasons - if people see proxy Vintage being sanctioned, then what about proxy Legacy? Once they give in there, then how about proxy Extended? Suddenly the profits go out of the game as people play with written-on basic lands instead of those $15 Arcbound Ravagers. However, there's no reason to ignore the proxy events, tacit approval and metagame monitoring isn't the same as actively supporting the events.

And best of all they are working on a "gp" system for this format and for 1.5.

Perhaps, but not on the same scale as the normal GPs. Card availibility prevents Vintage or Legacy becoming PTQ/GP formats... just think of how expensive the older cards would become if there were huge tournaments that often. It's already bad, but if every budding pro needed a playset of Power, Duals and Workshops there would simply not be the cards to sustain the format.

[epeeguy]

I think that there are several things to consider here.  And I think it really is more fundamental than whether or not WotC can recognize tournaments that feature proxies.  I think it gets down to the basics of what role sanctioned tournaments would play for Vintage and Legacy.  And that begs a lot of follow up questions.

For example, to what extent have people gone to, prior to the last couple of years, to really organize the Vintage and Legacy "tournament scenes"?  That is to say, increase the support and recognition of these formats?  IMO, this seems to have been a recent trend, with the events offered by SCG and some real organization of the Vintage (and Legacy) format by TMD and others.  As a result, there's been an influx of newer players and bigger recognition for the format.  So, IMO, the idea of competitive Vintage and Legacy comparable to PTQs, GPs or PTs... that's still very recent.

Then that gets to the idea of how competitive a format is it, and to what extent is it supported by the player base.  Are Vintage and Legacy both formats that are as competitive as Standard or Extended are?  And therefore have the same kind of attraction?  Or is the "temperment" of the Vintage and Legacy player different, such that it has a different appeal?  Note: that is not to say that Vintage or Legacy players aren't competitive, but it is a question I would ask before trying to get Organized Play really into such an environment of supporting larger tournaments for Vintage or Legacy.  Depending on how you answer these questions, again, this gets into how big the scene is.  So, I might look at attendance numbers first; in terms of how many people show, and how often these people play in these events.

Furthermore, another question that begs to be asked is to what extent does prize support exist for these formats?  If you are winning a booster box or two of the most recent expansion, is it really worth your while to invest in some of the cards for the format?  Likewise, to what extent would the prizes of a GP or PT for Vintage or Legacy have to be to attract enough players to make it viable?  Afterall, the cost to WotC for those events is very high to begin with, and what they generally bring is a lot of advertising and support for the smaller events.  Not to mention bring support for the product they are making.  If the cost vs. benefit isn't there, then really it's not viable.

You have to consider that most Vintage or Legacy tournaments are for very valuable and long OOP cards, that's more prize support than is common at most PTQs.  So, that would present a huge barrier there in the form of the entry fee for such an event.  Even offering a single Mox would require a pretty staggering investment on the TO, who would have to push for high attendance to recoup that cost.  Let alone any other prizes that are offered.  Even a simple Top 4 draft of Power would be a huge cost.  Sure, maybe WotC could decide to print "special edition" versions of these OOP cards that are legal for tournaments... but even then, would that satisfy players for these events?

I think, fundamentally, it really gets down to what one would try to accomplish in terms of a "tournament structure" for Vintage or Legacy; as well as how you could support the format.  I don't think the barrier is in terms of proxies.  Which, really, could be done in such a way that would not present problems for WotC (I think if someone could come up with a reasonable solution, that is technically feasible, it could be done).  I think the barrier to overcome is, what would this accomplish?

I think it is reasonable to conjecture that WotC has to be looking at a lot of things as they modify the Restricted and Banned lists for Vintage and Legacy, including "unsanctioned" tournament data.  So, recognizing "unsanctioned" tournament data isn't necessarily the problem... it's going the next step into making Vintage and Legacy into formats supported by Organized Play, and what that would accomplish.

[VGB]

Maybe the DCI could sanction proxies if secondary market value is in excess of $100 (or some other arbitrary value/monetary unit) for a given non-premium card, using an indicator such as aggregate Ebay prices.

There are potentially several problems with this approach:

1) Ostensibly it becomes another list to maintain - but the reality is that people know what the expensive cards are.
2a) Can you only proxy cards you actually own?  It's another headache to verify that every proxy has a legitimate counterpart.
2b) If proof of ownership is not a requisite for proxies, secondary market prices could take a hit, alienating Vintage cardboard crack dealers.  Not a big deal from a Vintage community standpoint, but probably a huge one from Wizard's.

edit -

On topic, it would be foolish for the DCI to ignore unsanctioned Vintage tournament data, since that comprises virtually the entirety of the format.