Sol RingSol Ring | Art by Qistina Khalidah

Breach the Bay 2 took place on August 22nd, a hybrid event of a Competitive EDH $25K, with 429 players, and the annual TopDeck Invitational. Besides the vastly different player counts, there was one other major difference between the two events: the Invitational was run with the typical "X points for a win, 1 point for a draw" system that has been the standard in the United States, and Breach the Bay 2 was run with the more typically Japanese point structure of starting with 1000 points, with a set percentage of those points being anted in each round, winner take all. In a crucial point, however, if there is no winner in the Japanese system, no one gets those points.

In a stark contrast between the two events, Breach the Bay had a draw rate of 9.89%. The Invitational? 35.59%.

For those that haven't been a part of the cEDH tournament meta lately, that second number wasn't a surprise, even with it being worse than usual. Siege at the Castle, a $10K in Colorado back in June, had a draw rate of 27.15%. The Quest for a Cause, a charitable Oregon $10K in May? Players drew 31.91% of their games. On and on it goes: Misplay on the Lake? 27.68%. The Boil? 36.57%. Tabernacle? 30.59%. The Royal Rumble, the first big tournament of the year? 34.74%.

(Betrayal at the Vault | Andreas Zafiratos)

There's no question that cEDH has been getting more popular, but if you've watched streams of tournament play, you honestly might wonder why. Swiss games devolve into a draw discussion at the drop of a hat, and if you ask the average tournament grinder they'll assure you that there's no way to resolve the "king-making" problem without these draws. The average scenario goes something like this: Player A puts a win on the stack. Player B, who is obviously set up to win on their turn, passes priority. You, Player C, have a single counterspell in hand. Do you counter Player A, and let Player B win, or do you just throw up your hands, say it's all hopeless, and let Player A resolve their win? This is where most tournament folks would step in and say "Neither. You offer them both a draw." This avoids the king-making conversation entirely, and everyone gets a draw point as a consolation prize. After all, it's an impossible situation, right?

Well, is it? Because players make these same decisions as if they're not impossible at every single tournament in the finals. A draw in top cuts means that whichever player is in seat one (with the best record) wins, at least since time limits were reintroduced after the infamous 11-hour game in Salt Con last year. In other words? Only one player in the game can take a draw, so everyone plays to win. When presented with the exact scenario above, the player with the counterspell makes the determination that gives them the best chance at winning and utilizes their spell accordingly.

So: players don't like these decisions, but both Top 16 games and Breach the Bay 2 show that they can make them. Therefore, if we don't want 30% draw rates to be part of the game, we just adopt the Japanese rules structure, no?

Well, a few folks didn't like those options, so they made another. The one leading that charge? Josh, AKA Mormonator, owner of FourthSeat, along with him being a well-known face in the cEDH community as a moderator of several dozen cEDH Discords and the r/CompetitiveEDH subreddit. I sat down with Mormonator to discuss what FourthSeat is and how they hope that it will improve the cEDH draw problem in tournament play.

Doug Y: So, what is FourthSeat?

Josh W: We’re releasing an event/tournament website specific to cEDH that we claim will be a mathematically more sound way to conduct cEDH tournaments, leagues, and circuits. It’s exciting because this is a new way to organize cEDH events in such a way that claims to minimize biases like turn order advantage and other competition-specific hindrances to the format. It’s led by a team that will continue to try and innovate not only on the format itself but on things like tournament structure without actually touching the rules of Magic/[Commander].

Doug Y: In other words, you're trying to do something about the menace that is the current draw meta in tournament cEDH.

Josh W: FourthSeat is a culmination of many years of testing and theorizing how cEDH could be "better", or at the very least a bit more statistically viable. We've tried to tackle a lot of problems; the draw issue you mentioned is just one of many. This past year we finally found the time and resources to bunker down, evolve beyond hand-to-hand Python programs on flash drives and Google Sheets, and deploy a website, fourthseat.gg, where our solutions can be put to the test[.]

Doug Y: And what exactly will you be putting to the test?

Josh W: The whole thing runs on a new points system that we've called "Prowess", named as not only a pun of the keyword ability, but also a claim that this Prowess can be viewed as a measurement of skill within cEDH.

Doug Y: So, is the Prowess points system what separates you from other tournament software?

Josh W: I'd say it's our biggest change visually, but the list of differences is quite a bit larger than just the points. On the outside looking in, most tournament attendees across all of Magic are accustomed to seeing things like Win/Loss/Draw numbers and their total points in the form of a rounded number with their [Opponent Win Record] (OPWR) tiebreakers. Given that we're altering that expectation drastically, yeah, it qualifies as the most impactful change.

Doug Y: Okay, so if not how well your opponents do, then what is the point system based in?

Josh W: The points system is based on Elo-equations that you would see being used in things like chess, or hidden behind your favorite online competitive video game. What we then did was rewrite them from the ground up with a few different expectations: four players, skill-based, an overwhelming assumption that players usually don't win games of cEDH, and then, the most important thing, adjustments of gains and losses based on turn order.

Doug Y: You're talking about what's seen as one of the other main problems in cEDH, the fact that first and second seat in a given match win at a much higher rate than seats three and four, leading a lot of players to feel that it's all a bit predetermined.

Josh W: In cEDH, as you had mentioned[,] the fourth player is at a massive disadvantage. The why behind that is an entertaining conversation, but not as important to now thousands of data points we have to prove it. If you play cEDH long enough you'll most definitely experience something like losing on your turn one and your opponent's turn two. So, our solution for this was to build on tiebreakers. In any Magic format, and I believe for most games in general, your tiebreakers are meant to indicate the difficulty of your experience in that tournament. The harder experience you had, the better, or more forgiving, your tiebreakers are. So, you went fourth? Better tiebreakers. That's the simple explanation for our biggest change, and the one that really starts to make the average tournament experience feel more fair.

Doug Y: I think I get the gist, but not the specifics. Is there a detailed breakdown you give folks before a tournament?

Josh W: If you're looking for specific numbers or visuals on the equations themselves, I don't think we'll ever be able to share those.

Doug Y: Proprietary information, then? A bit of a black-box system?

Josh W: I actually tend to hand out a cheat sheet, explaining that everyone is starting with points and that they'll see massive increases when they win and small decreases when they lose. Your Win-Loss-Draw ratio is still the key indicator. If you're 3-0, you'll always be above those who are 2-1, and so on. The 'Prowess' points are just an easy bite-sized way to show you current standing and your tiebreakers in a single number that gives you a clear idea of your current rankings.

Doug Y: So, I see here that the system starts with this "1200" number, but it seems like it's a bit deeper than it just being the number you start with at the beginning of each tournament.

Josh W: And now we're getting into the fun innovation about draw 'prevention' and doubling down on our predictions of player skill. It's both. Behind the scenes, each individual player has two associated numbers: their local Prowess and their global Prowess. Someone's local Prowess is isolated to a single event. You go to a tournament this weekend, start with 1200 points, win a few games, draw some others, and end with a final total of 1245~ (making this up). The next week, you decide to go out again, and start fresh at 1200, that's your local Prowess resetting each event. However, what has changed between the first week and the second is your Global Prowess (which is not used in any specific event), which can be seen on our leaderboards. Your Global Prowess will now read 1245. Should you perform favorably again, maybe your Global Prowess is now 1290 by the end of that second tournament. What this implies is that each individual cEDH match has a larger impact outside the isolation of a single event's snapshot.

Doug Y: Okay, so there's a separate global ranking that sticks around after each event, and a leaderboard. Those already exist, however, so what does this have to do with draw prevention?

Josh W: Currently, a lot of the draw meta is motivated by a short-sighted incentive to Top16, achieve internet clout, and lose in a spectacular fashion to first seat in your semifinals match. But what if the players knew that there was more at stake[?] Remember that scenario I mentioned earlier about a high-ranking chess player taking a draw against a low-ranking novice and then seeing their points go down? I had said that happening wouldn't be seen in any individual tournament and I stand by that, but it's not the case for an entrenched player with dozens or even hundreds of games built up over the course of a competitive season/circuit. Remember that this system is built on predictions/expectations vs actual values. So a highly ranked player walking into any array of cEDH matches is predicted to win. Should a draw happen instead, well, things are different. While your individual tournament won't be affected, you may start to see your global ranking slip in doing so. For enfranchised players, taking an easy draw may not be the meta gameplan anymore.

Doug Y: So, essentially, instead of getting points for Top Cuts, you get points for each win, and as an experienced player, lose points for both losses and draws. All of this is only for your Global Prowess ranking, however, which has no effect on the event itself. Is that right?

Josh W: Beating someone of a better global ranking than you will affect your global ranking. It will have no effect on the immediate tournament you're in as it's in isolation. This also does something to the 0-3 drop ideology, and I'm not sure for better or for worse, as a player may feel like sticking around to at least try and balance out their Global Standings may be better than just giving up on the event with an 0-3 drop because they won't Top Cut.

Doug Y: Having had a few abysmal tournament days, I like the idea of being able to stick around with a larger goal in mind.

Josh W: The leaderboard still has its merits as we don't ever plan on charging LGSs to participate in said circuits. Profit margins are already tight enough for a local game store. Players who do not find themselves being able to attend/travel larger events will still be able to witness progression within their own spheres. [It] boils down to trying to find and encourage incentive behind winning.

If we can develop or encourage a culture in new players to either:

a) Get to last round, realize that they're kinda sorta in the running for Top Cut, could take a draw here, but then realize that they are aiming for a regional invitational, and a win here could solidify that Global Prowess cut more than just barely scraping into Top16, so they decide to play it out and push for a win: 👍 -> Huge Success

b) Get to last round, realize that they're kinda sorta in the running for Top Cut, could take a draw here, but then remember that their chances of progressing through Top16 are slim to none because of the overwhelming advantage that 1st Seat has in Top16, that they decide to play for a win to better their chances of getting a higher seat in Top16, so they decide to play it out: 👍 -> Huge Success.

c) Get to last round, realize that they're kinda sorta in the running for Top Cut, could take a draw here, but then realize that they're going 1st and will take a negative tick against their Tiebreakers, which could mean that if more tables draw this round, they'll be at the bottom end of all tiebreakers into the Top Cut bubble, so they decide to play it out and shoot for a win: 👍 -> Huge Success

These are all scenarios where I strongly believe we can encourage a change to the draw meta by changing things specific to tournament cadence[--]nothing about Magic rules themselves[--]and get the game to where it should be: a winner's format.

Doug Y: Yeah, I can actually see players stopping to think about that, especially if taking a draw means losing points in their global ranking, or could actually keep them out of Top Cut in the first place, rather than getting them in! Is that all, when it comes to changes from the norm that has created the draw meta in cEDH?

Josh W: Dead players receive a game loss for that round.

Doug Y: Oh, that is quite the change, and one I quite like the sound of!

Josh W: [It's a] nerf to a literal card, which isn't something you'd think you can do with a tournament structure change, and that's Pact of NegationPact of Negation. [W]e do not have a lot of data on this, but Pact of Negation is often the go-to king-maker-prevention-tool-all-in-one-draw-forcer-magic-spellbook.

Doug Y: You're talking about the infamous "king-making" scenario, where someone can counter someone else's win, but will die to their Pact trigger on upkeep if they do.

Josh W: So now we throw in the twist, the caster of Pact of Negation, should they die, is now getting a loss for that round, even if the game eventually went to a draw. Similarly, we'll draw up a different scenario: the expenditure of resources in an attempt to encourage a draw. What this refers to is something like a player in desperation deciding to spend all their life on Necropotence to try and force a draw state. My favorite way this happens is when TivitTivit is trying to win the game and someone realizes that, because of a potential restriction to time in the round, they can vastly impact that Tivit's chances of winning by taking themselves out of the game and hoping the match will go to a draw. It's a perfectly legal game action within today's rules and wouldn't even qualify as stalling. So what if that line of reasoning was no longer possible, or viable, because that player would just get a loss anyway? Hopefully that would lead to a draw being prevented and a clear deserved winner emerging from the rubble.

Doug Y: Yeah, killing yourself to prevent Tivit from getting enough Treasures to keep on taking infinite turns with Time SieveTime Sieve doesn't really work out for you if you just take a game loss and everyone else gets the draw, with probably only one or two of those players even benefiting from said draw.

Josh W: This new change to our tournament rules was moreso [sic] meant to encourage different deck-building strategies, or at the very least encourage a more intelligent expenditure of resources. Thereby stopping an Ad NausAd Naus player from feeding 40+ cards to the RhysticRhystic slop board state just to hope and pray that the following stack battle results in a draw even though they die to an opponent's RagavanRagavan on the next turn. What it boils down to is discouraging players from taking themselves out of the game just to chaotically disrupt game cadence so they can slink away with a draw point. To be honest, there are probably numerous application[s] for this new rule that we've missed.

Doug Y: This might even make aggro decks, which are currently few and far between, slightly more viable as well. Raph and Mikey, WinotaWinota, and NajeelaNajeela are all more than capable of taking out single players if they focus on them, so if they manage that and then get blown out and end up in a draw, they've done slightly better on tiebreakers as a result.

Josh W: Correct. And it’s not just about tie breakers but also denying an opponent progression in the tournament. That one loser may never catch up points-wise. Other than that, I think all the [draw] bases are covered, [although I'd] like to reiterate that wins in fourth are now worth a lot more, so hopefully that positively impacts [fourth seat] players' desire to just give up and play for a draw versus trying to present a win.

So: what do you think? Would changing how a draw is handled in your seat change how you played? Would you be more likely to go for wins--even at greater risk--if you knew doing so would affect your overall ranking? How do you feel about dead players getting a loss instead of "credit" for a draw?

Let us know in the comments!