[Article] Team Secrecy and the Public Information Store

[JACO]

The Type 1 format is currently in or just past its infant stages in terms of competitiveness and development. In these infant stages there is much open to debate, and one of the hottest debates that currently rages is the degree to which we keep information secret. Without further adieu:

Team Secrecy and the Public Information Store

While the quality of events like Pro Tour Qualifiers and smaller local Type 1 tournaments may not be on par with Pro Tour or Type 1 Championship events, respectively, that does not mean there is not valuable matches being played and valid testing going on. Many new decks come out this way, and that will not change. All decks are 'rogue' until they are discovered and widely accepted to be a playable deck. Teams alone are not responsible for all of the best or most often played decks, and they never will be. Behind any good team is at least one great deck builder, and in fact many of the better deck builders work alone. While teams may word hard to develop and tweak decks in private they should be afforded this secrecy while developing the deck, but once they have performed successfully in tournaments this information should become public domain. To illustrate this, one glaring example of team secrecy that worked well was when the Paragons team came up with an interesting idea of inserting Deep Analysis into Tog decks before last year’s GenCon, and kept it mostly a secret (besides a small leak or two). After the tournament was over, this information became public, as it should have, when the decklists were published. The Magic community has become quantifiably better with the release of this information, as well as Shockwave’s weekend dominating Worldgorger Dragon build, which was seen in many different incarnations immediately afterwards.

Any type of feedback regarding content, writing style, etc. is welcome and appreciated. Let the debate roll on...

[Smmenen]

I sincerely appreciate the fact that you took a step forward in this debate - a debate that will no doubt only intensify as subsequent tournament data is published.  But I think your article really belies alot of ignorance both about deck development in this format and how teams actually function.  I don't think Dragon is an example of what you preach.  Several people worked on that.  (I may write a piece for SCG about the topic).

[Milton]

Smmenen, I would love an explaination of how teams function.  This may be a good idea for one of your articles on SCG.  "How teams function".  I'm not trying to be sarcastic, either!

I like the article.  It was a little dry, but it was easy enough to follow and I liked the notion that once a deck is successful at a tournament it should become part of the public record.  I agree totally.

[JACO]

I sincerely appreciate the fact that you took a step forward in this debate - a debate that will no doubt only intensify as subsequent tournament data is published.  But I think your article really belies alot of ignorance both about deck development in this format and how teams actually function.  I don't think Dragon is an example of what you preach.  Several people worked on that.  (I may write a piece for SCG about the topic).

Steve, I'm well aware of how most teams function. I was not citing Dragon as a deck developed soley by Shockwave, as I am well aware that he had the assistance of DicemanX and probably Lam Phan as well. If more information was made available from the last GenCon, like the Top 8 for each tournament that weekend, more people would see just how dominating Rich was with the deck. The point regarding Rich's build of Dragon was to illustrate how a deck is kept secret until a large event (GenCon), and how it then became part of the public information store, and was then copied and changed into a few different variations once the information was made available to the rest of the Type 1 players.

I have no issue with team secrecy up until an event where a deck does well or places highly. This in fact rewards the creators and testers of said deck(s) until they spring forth with new tech at an event to hopefully surprise the field and win or place highly in the event. I would contend that at that point it should become part of the public information store to help fuel the growth of Type 1, for the reasons stated in my article.

[dicemanx]

Just a historical tidbit about the Dragon deck that Shock Wave unveiled in Gencon last year: the deck list pretty much came into existence in January that year, and was published in one of my Dragon threads that I started after the restriction of Entomb. That list lacked Squees, which was Rich's huge innovation that made Dragon competitve and such a dominant force. But the point was that the deck list wasn't that much of a secret, it's just that Dragon gets little to no respect outside of Canada and most people ignored the suggested builds that were posted back then .

[Zherbus]

Thank you for writing this, it brings a good arguement forth in a manner in which its definitely worth dicussing.

This type of open discussion is often referred to as 'open-sourcing' in the computer field, and is used to help work the bugs and flaws out of software programs. Software such as Linux, Apache, PGP, and many more are first developed and created, and they are then shared with the public. The public picks apart the information that is shared, and any flaws that are found are exposed through public testing, and then typically corrected. This makes the software better, stronger, and more resilient to hate and hackers or crackers over the long run. While competitors can see the inner workings of the software, it is for the betterment of the software, and for the betterment of the public. The public exchange of ideas by Magic players is parallel to this, as decks and card choices become optimized after a concerted public effort. Only after exposing something to find all of its weaknesses can it be revised and made to exist in its most optimal form.

The major difference here is that there is an obvious benefit behind withholding tech for suprise factor. I've been beaten by it and I've beaten people with it. In the software world, the people who write the software want other people to succeed with said software. In the Magic world, that's not always the case. There will always be those who just want to make a name for themselves by developing something that people will use and then there are those who develop something because they want success for themselves (or teammates). I have to say apples and oranges to this analogy.

While teams are great for the format and are good at developing, testing, and tweaking ideas, without the public information store these teams would have little to base their testing on, and would be stuck with very few ideas. To argue this point is futile and without merit. The public exchange of information is what leads to rapid development and growth, and this is why people look to tournament results and decklists. The best decks, teams, and the best competition, thrive on the public exchange of information. Mediocre players with good decklists are still mediocre players, but a community with good decklists is a start to making a better community and Type 1 environment.

There are some flaws in this...

Firstly, as Smmenen had alluded to, the way teams work isn't to establish a team name for 5 or  guys and only communicate with those 5 or 6 people. It spreads out to other teams, non-affiliated people, and local testing partners. Germbus, for example was a few of us from Meandeck combining efforts with Team CAB. We recognize that some broadening is nessecary and good teams should practice this. What would not have helped the development along is posting a list in the open forum to get feedback. It's not the bad ideas, it's not the wrong mindset for development, or the ego's people won't leave aside in a public forum, but all three.

I even mentioned upping the Scrying count to some non-team mates and it was as if I was asking them to try sex with their own sister. I want feedback that works! I do not want some off the wall list that works in your middle-of-nowhere meta, not feedback based on lessons *I* gave out a year ago which are no longer valid, and I certainly don't want to tell you why Planar Portal won't work (or waste my time because you told me to test it). The bottom line is that I only wanted peoples input that I valued and there is no merit in argueing that the public has a high noise to sound ratio that some of us don't want to deal with.

Secondly, mediocre players with good decks are still mediocre players is true. However, that only really works in a format where playskill is the most important aspect. In type 1, for the majority of decks, the deck plays itself. We have some pretty flawed players in this format and the power level is an excellent crutch for them to succeed. I've played against alot of the people who have won with a major archetype and let me assure you that for many of them it wasn't because they outplayed people.

Lastly, I would like some clarification on the final statement. I just don't understand how making decklists better makes for a better community. I understand that having a more competent playerbase is good for our growth, but I don't understand how spoonfeeding people achieves this.

[rvs]

it's just that Dragon gets little to no respect outside of Canada and most people ignored the suggested builds that were posted back then

Hey, you're forgetting us dutchies - Don't forget I also T8-ed with a similar decklist at Worlds in Berlin. And Roy and Hero (Ancestral and Pyromaniac) have T8'ed a bunch of tournaments with Dragon as well.

@Zherbus:

Secondly, mediocre players with good decks are still mediocre players is true. However, that only really works in a format where playskill is the most important aspect. In type 1, for the majority of decks, the deck plays itself.

While this is mostly true, why do you think that the best players are still the ones coming out on top?

[theorigamist]

While this is mostly true, why do you think that the best players are still the ones coming out on top?

Like any complicated thing, it takes a lot of practice and skill to get to be the best at Magic.  The best deck can only cary you so far.  Think of musical instruments as an analogy.  The player with the best instrument will sound good, but not quite as good as the best player with the best instrument.  Even if the difference between a mediocre player and a great player, both with the best deck, shows up only rarely, statistics say that the top players will come out on top more often, given more and more games.

[JACO]

This type of open discussion is often referred to as 'open-sourcing' in the computer field, and is used to help work the bugs and flaws out of software programs. Software such as Linux, Apache, PGP, and many more are first developed and created, and they are then shared with the public. The public picks apart the information that is shared, and any flaws that are found are exposed through public testing, and then typically corrected. This makes the software better, stronger, and more resilient to hate and hackers or crackers over the long run. While competitors can see the inner workings of the software, it is for the betterment of the software, and for the betterment of the public. The public exchange of ideas by Magic players is parallel to this, as decks and card choices become optimized after a concerted public effort. Only after exposing something to find all of its weaknesses can it be revised and made to exist in its most optimal form.

The major difference here is that there is an obvious benefit behind withholding tech for suprise factor. I've been beaten by it and I've beaten people with it. In the software world, the people who write the software want other people to succeed with said software. In the Magic world, that's not always the case. There will always be those who just want to make a name for themselves by developing something that people will use and then there are those who develop something because they want success for themselves (or teammates). I have to say apples and oranges to this analogy.

I think that most people would agree that they deserve to spring forth with their own new tech at least once, and if that means showing up at a big tournament with a great sideboard or new deck, then that's fine. I've never argued against that. The point I made is once you have performed well, that information is public domain. On the Pro Tour, they don't even need decklists because they are scouting between rounds. Your Move Games was using binoculars at one point so they could see more and farther. But because Type 1 tournaments are more regionalized, however, there is a greater need for decklists to really know what is being played.

Firstly, as Smmenen had alluded to, the way teams work isn't to establish a team name for 5 or  guys and only communicate with those 5 or 6 people. It spreads out to other teams, non-affiliated people, and local testing partners. Germbus, for example was a few of us from Meandeck combining efforts with Team CAB. We recognize that some broadening is nessecary and good teams should practice this. What would not have helped the development along is posting a list in the open forum to get feedback. It's not the bad ideas, it's not the wrong mindset for development, or the ego's people won't leave aside in a public forum, but all three.

As I also said before, I'm well aware of how good testing works. Bouncing it between your own teammates, and then bouncing it off other teams is a natural way to go about this, and I wouldn't argue that. In this sense, good testing is somewhat like the structures of the CIA and FBI. They intentionally compartmentalize certain things to bring in independent sources of data, and then certain things are shared through specific channels.

Lastly, I would like some clarification on the final statement. I just don't understand how making decklists better makes for a better community. I understand that having a more competent playerbase is good for our growth, but I don't understand how spoonfeeding people achieves this.

Once the knowledge of decks that performed well is out there, those decks and card choices can be optimized by the public at large. From what I've read, JP, Smennen, and others think that there should only be 1 version of each deck, and that there has to be quantifiable best card choices. I would support that for the most part, except for the fact that Type 1 is especially metagame and regional dependant, so that is an underlying factor that goes unnoticed in the discussion of optimization.

Secondly, mediocre players with good decks are still mediocre players is true. However, that only really works in a format where playskill is the most important aspect. In type 1, for the majority of decks, the deck plays itself.

While this is mostly true, why do you think that the best players are still the ones coming out on top?

Rudy/Morefling, I couldn't agree more. The essence of being a good player boils down to more than just playing with a good decklist. Analyzing an expected meta, making correct play decisions, and more go into making players consistently Top 8 and perform at a high level.

[Zherbus]

While this is mostly true, why do you think that the best players are still the ones coming out on top?

Either you're nitpicking something with a greater point or you really want to know my thoughts. The best players win for two reasons. Firstly, the best players metagame properly, and in THIS format it's a key skill to have. Those decks that don't have a low skill-cap (read somewhat skill intensive) don't really apply here but a good player knows what deck will have the easiest time in any given metagame. Secondly, the best players also know their matchups. These two requirements can be met by any mediocre player but sadly, this doesn't happen as often as it should.

But because Type 1 tournaments are more regionalized, however, there is a greater need for decklists to really know what is being played.

I think that this requirement is met regardless of whether tech is shared. When I was part of the Paragons and we had THE Tog build, people knew the basic skeleton but they chose not to regard it as well as they should have in my opinion. Everyone knows the basic skeleton of most decks and short of some wierd tweaks, that's enough to know how to play out your matches.

Once the knowledge of decks that performed well is out there, those decks and card choices can be optimized by the public at large. From what I've read, JP, Smennen, and others think that there should only be 1 version of each deck, and that there has to be quantifiable best card choices. I would support that for the most part, except for the fact that Type 1 is especially metagame and regional dependant, so that is an underlying factor that goes unnoticed in the discussion of optimization.

I can't speak for them, but I don't think they believe that... I could be wrong. Personally, I think in this format there should be room for metagaming. 4cTog vs. 3cTog is the perfect example. I think what Smmenen and JP want, however, is there to be less archetypes (like aggro = FCG and that's it) - again, I could be wrong there too.

[jpmeyer]

What we want is for there to be like one or two decks within each category of deck (have FCG as aggro and forget about Lackey Sligh, R/G, etc.) and then also "standardized" version of each deck type rather than 5 different shadings of versions of that deck.  That means that I don't have a problem with say, 4c vs. 3c Tog (they're both still Tog,) but it's annoying when you have like TnT, Stacker, Ravager Affinity, Modular, Workshop Slaver, Stax, Mud, and 7/10 as your Workshop decks.  One, maybe two of those should be around and the rest should get discarded.