Is there a shift in the metagame

[bebe]

Here are the questions ...

How much has the meta game slowed down since last year?

The days of turn one and two wins seems to be history. Looking at the top decks from major tournaments one would have to deduce that decks now have a window of opportunity to develop before the game abrubtly ends. Control, aggro and aggro control seem to all thrive in particular metas.

If the first statement is true can we see a shift to more control decks?

Drain Slaver, Cherry Parfait, Crucible Lock and MonoBlue come to mind. Are these decks the new foils to the meta game?

Can we expect to see any combo deck succeed?

I know Rich and Peter have reworked Dragon but where are the results. In Europe Tendrils still seems viable ... is it as viable here?

[Triple_S]

From what I saw at GenCon, the coin flip is more important now than it ever has been (or atleast since the days of Academy or Jar mirror matches).  The DeathLong deck Stephen piloted in the Friday (early) tournament is a huge threat in hands of a skilled player and I believe it can be as format distorting as the original deck with 4 x burning wish.  Beyond the decks that randomly win on turn1 and turn 2 like DeathLong and Belcher, Workshop can win on turn 1 or 2 with the 3Sphere/Crucible/Waste draw.  Against some decks the 3Sphere along is enough to get the job done.

[Shock Wave]

I know Rich and Peter have reworked Dragon but where are the results.

The results were there. Peter didn't make Top8 in the main event, but he still had a great record at 5-1-2. In every other event in which he played Dragon, he made T8 or better. I'd say that's pretty good. 3 Dragon decks narrowly missed T8 in the main event as well.

[Vegeta2711]

The meta has stayed sped up, but it really doesn't show anymore. Combo eventually loses to it's own inconsistency, player error or sheer hate from certain decks. So that stays in check. Aggro in Workshop form is strong agian and crucible didn't utterly break everything, just changed it a bit. Control is back in many different decks and at least seem to be doing alright.

Basically it's fun to see Control Slaver, Parfait and Mono-U again.

[bebe]

Combo as has been said, shows a lot of inconsistencies these days. I'm not saying that they cannot be played but that combo is certainly not the dominant player in today's meta. I have a great respect for Rich and Peter and played Dragon myself at more than one venue with great success. But I am aware of its weaknesses. Belcher is the fastest combo and I've won and lost with it as well. But it is just to damn vulnerable. If you get the right match ups you will top eight but will these decks win the prize?

Workshop decks can try and lock you early with 3Sphere. Of the decks I fear, it is top of the list. Crucible/Waste is a new fact of the environment. This does not speed games up but rather slows them down or least that has been my experience.

Mono-blue and Parfait can only be played in a meta that has slowed down and the results seem to indicate this is the case.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

Not to detract from the obvious power of draw7 and death long, but I think that TPS is probably the best tendrils combo deck because of it's sheer resilience to hate.  It has a good deal of protection and so many solutions that some builds are now almost control/combo in nature.  It doesn't roll over to a resolved sp3re or md stifles, etc.  I'm not sure if the fact that it doesn't make a showing much in north america is due to a different meta or a lack of popularity resulting in few people choosing to piolet the deck.  I think it definately has a good chance of seeing sucess, though.

[Smmenen]

Last year after Gencon, there was a sense that we knew what the best decks were, clearly.  There was no question.  Rector had proved to be more hype that reality and Tog, Mask, Stax, and Dragon were perceived to be the best decks with multiples of half of those decks in the top 8.

It seems to me that the opposite has occurred this year.  Now there is confusion.  There were 8 different decks in the Gencon top 8, depending on who you ask.  Metagame shift?  There is too much confusion for a clear shift.  Instead of being a metagame shift, the metagame sort of become incoherent.

[dicemanx]

I don't think that the metagame *became* incoherent - what exactly was the "meta" prior to this event? I think that there were simply many viable archetypes for a while leading up to Gencon, and they were all played to some degree of success both at Worlds and in the side events. In testing it seemed like most match-ups between top decks were about 50/50 with nothing emerging as too dominant, so we knew that whoever was going to top-8 at Worlds would have to have a lot of luck while maintaining a high level of play in the later rounds of such a long event.

[Smmenen]

The metagame prior to the event, in my estimation, was defined by the Starcitygames Power Nine tournament, primarily, and secondarily by the prior Central Coast and East Coast Championships.  

PTW won the ECC and the CCC and got 3rd at the SCG p9 tournament.
You have to understand my assertion in context.  The lack of clear metagame delineation following Gencon is, in my mind, incoherence *when* you consider the clear lines that were drawn following last year's event.  The contrast is striking.  

Looking at the top 8 data at Gencon this year, you have to really understand what is going on to learn something.   Last year, it was rather obvious that Stax, Dragon, Tog, and Mask were the decks to beat.  

Why is this important? It's important becuase the largest and most important tournament events are supposed to set and define the metagame.  What lessons could you take with you to the Waterbury?

Even if I accept your argument that the metagame was incoherent prior to the Gencon Champs, don't you agree that it seems as incoherent, if not more so, then it did before?  For a tournament so large and important, that is what I find striking.  When played out upon the backdrop of increased understanding and data about the format, shouldn't the format consolidate rather than disperse?

[dicemanx]

Why is this important? It's important becuase the largest and most important tournament events are supposed to set and define the metagame.

The tournament essentially confirmed what we discovered in a lot of our testing - there are many viable archetypes, and there are no truly dominant decks. Many match-ups are close to 50/50. Worlds made this point quite clear.  

When played out upon the backdrop of increased understanding and data about the format, shouldn't the format consolidate rather than disperse?

Whether or not we see "consolidation" in a format (which I interpret as just a fancy way of saying that the best decks, consisting of just a *few* archetypes, are identified) is simply dependent on the available card pool. I hardly find it surprising that we are witnessing what you call a "dispersal"; furthermore, the terms "consolidation" and "dispersal" have certain connotations attached which can be misleading. As I said above, the environment contains a large number of viable deck types, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a few additional archetypes, like Goblin Sligh/red burn and Suicide, making a return in light of the emergence of slower control decks and decks centered around Crucible/Blood Moon/Back to Basics.

You have to understand my assertion in context. The lack of clear metagame delineation following Gencon is, in my mind, incoherence *when* you consider the clear lines that were drawn following last year's event. The contrast is striking.

There is a clear contrast, and indeed it is striking, but why exactly are we making a comparison to last year's contest? Your point  about "incoherence" as I understand it revolves around the state of the metagame just prior to Gencon this year and its aftermath.

[Elric]

There is an advantage to have an unexpected deck.  For that reason, the metagame should not necessarily settle down.  Additionally, there are a lot of factors that go into making a “best deck.â€?  For example, the price and rarity of Workshops means that Workshop decks are going to be scarce at most sanctioned events (except GenCon and other huge tournaments).  This results in Workshop decks not appearing commensurate to their power and makes metagaming against them more difficult.  It also means that top 8 results can be deceptive.

Control Slaver is a deck with a different factor making it rare—difficulty of play.  You have to be very good with the deck to play it to near its full potential.  This natural restriction makes Control Slaver a worse deck for most people to play, but it is a blessing for the few people who are really good with Control Slaver.  Since there aren’t going to be very many Control Slaver players (who are experts with the deck) at an event, you practice against it less and devote less of your maindeck/sideboard to beating it.  One of the consequences of this is that usual metagame definitions don’t necessarily apply.  

The usual definition of a best deck would go something like: the deck, that in equilibrium, would be the most played deck in the format.  With skill intensive decks, though, your task is to become a highly skilled player who can take advantage of decks that most people cannot play as well as you can.  In some cases, your task could also be to become a player with a highly valued collection.  

When decks are skill intensive, the deck that you play has to be a deck that you are good with—and thus a deck that you have tested a lot.  As a result, the metagame is defined by which of the few decks that you test extensively you end up playing.  When there is no clear dominant deck or anyone with a soapbox big enough to cause consolidation of options, you shouldn’t expect a consolidation of the metagame.

The actual results of a tournament alone aren’t even that indicative.  Statistically, a deck has to be incredibly dominant in a tournament for it to mean a lot about the deck itself.  What tournament results tell you to some extent is what decks are good in the hands of the better players.  They also tell you the result of people’s testing—the deck that performed the best in testing is probably the one that they are playing.  When the metagame gears up for a big event, a lot of decks change (because when your opponent is playing against your deck for the first time, you have a large advantage) and that is to be expected.  I think the better question than “why isn’t the metagame coherent?â€? is “why is the metagame ever coherent?â€?  

Look at last year’s GenCon, supposedly a pinnacle of defining the metagame.  Mirrodin will come out soon, bringing Chalice of the Void, and yet the next deck to get cards restricted is a combo deck that would probably have been stronger (compared to the card pool) at GenCon than in December.  If anything, that indicates that last year’s GenCon found an overly high amount of coherence, which would soon be shattered.

(edit- added more paragraph breaks)

[Smmenen]

I'm thinking of other formats where metagames consolidate rather quickly and then shift.  

If JP is correct that T1 is now a PTQ format and not a PT format, then I think that would to a great degree explain what I perceive as a lack of coherence.  However, and ironically, it makes metagaming for the format in anticipation of shifts, the essence of a PTQ format, far more difficult.

I will say that I think most of the decks in the format are rather skill intensive - that isn't limited to Tog.  "Just winning" is pretty much out of the question with the upper caliber decks.  

I think another reflection of what I'm talking about is the uncertainty in this thread.  Bebe suggests that the format is slowing while Shane suggests it is speeding up.  Which is it?  Both at the same time?  

Hopefully CoK will have something amazing to shake things up.

[Zherbus]

I think that outside of Control Slaver being the cool deck to play, the format is amazingly hard to nail down. Just trying to come up with a gauntlet for Waterbury for example lends yourself to a shitload of guess-work. I think the format is not as slow as the 4cC and Fish metagame was last month. I also think the format isn't nearly as fast as when combo decks were more popular.