Where to from here?
In the previous two posts, I explored the 2013 and 2014 Townsville Commander Leagues. This post is about the TCL2015 and lessons we as players, judges, and organisers took from it.
Tidy, tidy, tidy
The TCL2015 was the first (and to date only) year that we repeated the match format from the previous one. Significant changes were in the rules structure, sponsorship, individual and team bonus awards, and a local points list.
One document to rule them all
The TCL2013 rules document was drafted by Chris and edited by Mark. The TCL2014 document was written by Mark and edited by me. In 2015, we switched over and the god-awfully-annoying rules Nazi in me got to create a monster. In the end, Mark had to be firm about culling the bloat I had put into the thing. That said, the final document was eighteen (18) pages. I learned the acronym "TL; DR" when asking for comments on this. However, the experienced players all (again, begrudgingly) accept that a document like this has to exist when running a tournament for prizes.
The document has a statement of intent, prize structures, and the format of the tournament. It also has the Doubleton rules. I think of the Doubleton rules as being akin to Rugby Union rules in the 1990s and AFL rules in the 2000s. In order to make the game clearer and a better experience, the ruling bodies of these code changed the rules and interpretation instructions for referees. These were often minor changes, but they occurred each year for a decade or so. After that time, changes became infrequent. I like to think of the Doubleton rules in this light: it was always going to take a few years to map them out. I genuinely think (in 2017) that we are pretty close.
A message from our sponsor
The NQCGS (North Queensland Card Gaming Society) is a non-profit, incorporated society affiliated with James Cook University. It receives a small amount of funding from JCU and runs MTG events for members. In 2015, the NQCGS agreed to underwrite the prizes for the TCL2015, provided all participants were paid members. One very important lesson we learned from this experience is to ensure prizes are purchased ahead of advertising any event: by the time the prizes were to be purchased, the AUD:USD had shifted dramatically and the TCL, notwithstanding the additional membership generated, for the first time, made a loss.
We were disappointed with this, but on the flip side it did mean that both the TCL and the NQCGS had both grown to a point where events were sustainable. For several years I have argued that events should always at least aim to break even: not all of them will, and the gap needs to be financed somehow.
It is also really important to note that the TCL is independent of the NQCGS: it is sponsored by, but not run by, the Club. It seems like a pedantic point, as the same people were running both. However, fundamentally the TCL flowed from Mark's labour. It also seems pretty likely that there will still be a close relationship between the TCL and the Club for many years to come.
The bonus level
TCL2015 was the first to include additional individual and team awards. These were separate from the main event prizes and had different criteria. It is perhaps a nod to the non-competitive aspects of EDH implied in the mtgcommander.net committee framework. It was positively received.
We did debate the prize structure and the number of "elective" awards to great length. It was decided at the end to only put in a few awards and see what the feedback was.
Making a point
After 2014, we examined the Australian Highlander list and received feedback on it. The results were mixed. Most people felt it was a necessary evil. Others hated the idea of having restrictions at all. I will note that very few participants of TCL2013 (which had no restrictions at all) have voiced a desire to have another "open-slather" League for prizes. We had guessed ahead of TCL2014 that having the organisers (or similar secret committee) choose cards to appear on a list would fail miserably. From the outset we have wanted to do things differently - preferably better - than any comparable competition anywhere in the world. In the end, we are not competing for the hearts and minds of players globally. We are trying to build the best social and play experience we can, in the environment we are in.
With this in mind, the TCL2015 had a voting system where players from TCL2014 could pick cards that they wanted points added to. This was merged with the Australian Highlander list to produce the first TCL-specific list. It is community-driven and selected by popular vote. In that sense, we all have some ownership - a stake in the health of the local MTG community. It also reduces the stigma of playing cards that might be considered unwholesome or un-fun: if the community believes a particular card is gross, it will pick up lots of votes.
This is essentially the type of survey that multiplicity of secret rules committees (presumably) are performing on their playgroups. The difference here is that the participants actually change the outcome. It is democratic and it creates a natural ebb and flow in the prevalence of certain cards and strategies. This refreshes the League each year. It also gives teams the opportunity to "vent" against what they consider "d*ck cards".
That said: we were initially worried that players would vote for "pet hates" rather than genuinely gross and powerful things (e.g. Strip Mine and Sol Ring) and thus the Australian Highlander list was included to make a hybrid. I cannot objectively say either way here whther this was a good idea. Certainly, by the time the community voted on the 2016 list, there was a level of maturity and sensibility in the voting - the top 5 cards ended up being: Strip Mine, Sol Ring, Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, and Tooth and Nail. That is simply amazing.
To misquote Winston Churchill: "a points system is the worst way to run a Commander League with prizes ... except for all the other ways that have been tried".
No comments:
Post a Comment