Comment by nimih
3 years ago
In my experience playing MTG (and other card games), when players discuss skill, they generally mean a (somewhat fuzzy) combination of both deckbuilding and "piloting" ability. It's understandable to want to draw a line between the two and say "I only want to evaluate in-game decision-making,", but, not only is that wildly impractical (it's going to be really hard to develop a model which fairly accounts for the fact that your buddy Jeff only likes playing decks which do nothing for 50 turns and then win the game on the spot iff no one else has a counterspell[0]), part of the way card game leagues work (again, in my experience) is that players spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to make their decks better and adapt them to what other players are doing. If you can't capture that effort, I honestly think you might be missing the point a little bit.
[0] Let's be clear, Jeff's deck is bad and he's going to lose a lot, even if he's a time-traveling supercomputer with the diplomatic finesse of Otto von Bismarck.
> when players discuss skill, they generally mean a (somewhat fuzzy) combination of both deckbuilding and "piloting" ability.
I think the "piloting" ability is mostly (but not entirely) independent of the deck. You can see this most plainly in draft, where everyone is basically playing with a new deck. There are "soft" skills that are contextual and format-dependent, like knowing the cards that you need to play around (white just foretold turn 2, is that a Doomskar? Maybe I shouldn't play a creature this turn, etc). There are "hard" skills that are almost always valid (generally wait until after combat to spend mana, cast instants during your opponent's end step, etc).
But certainly deckbuilding talent is not necessary, because anybody can grab a decklist and head to TCGPlayer.
On that note I'd guess that draft (or sealed) tournaments are the best scenario to measure pure skill using Elo alone, since going into a tournament, everyone has equal chance to open good cards.