[AGAIN] Article -- Interactivity in Type I (Yes,Trinisphere)

[VGB]

Lastly, from an administrative standpoint. They messed up big time. They let the players bully them into restricting a card.

If you honestly feel this, then you should read Forsythe's explanation of the reasoning behind the current T1 restriction.  If you still have that opinion after reading it (which I can't believe you have yet), then he is either a bald liar or you are an incorrigible conspiracy theorist.

Just ask yourself this: which is more visceral to a card game business - actually losing players or player whining?

Players will always whine, which makes the answer obvious.

In their position they should have a set criteria clearly defined (and visible for all players to read) that states the steps leading up to restriction. If players know the process and the card meets all criteria. Then restirict it.  It has to be clear cut and straight across the board.  Opinion or complaints should have no place in the process.

 

In a perfect world - and I guess that is the entire point of this thread.

@Dozer

Excellent post.  I sort of allude to your idea in my first post, when I state to the effect that some highly interactive decks obsoleted by 3Sphere "have a lot of cards that are purely reactive".

I still disagree with the idea that Stompy is non-interactive.  What about the mirror, or versus Madness, or WW, or Sligh, or Suicide Black?  A lot of people keep forgetting that a deck's level of interactivity is also dependent on the matchup, and when a deck relies on an inordinate amount of creature combat in order to win, it must interact with decks utilizing a commensurate premise.

[ROLAND]

@ VGB:  
I just found and read the article. I agree with what your saying. I still think guidelines for restriction should be clearly posted. It's just so much easier to quash complaints and justify your decisions if you have something written down. You can always revise them as the game evolves.  It might just help the R&d department when they create new cards. Use it as a checklist during play testing.

@ Dozer
Nice definition.  In your opinion:

Should interactivity be based on the number of chances a player has to respond to his opponent?

or

Should interactivity be based on the number of spells a player can resolve against his opponent?


Roland

[rakso]

@VGB

Well, yeah, we do like to strive for perfection. Then we can be satisfied with getting somewhere near.


@ROLAND

There was a link to the restriction explanation by Forsythe in the article that is the point of this thread. The relevant portion was also quoted at the start of the article.

Stompy, as I said, is arguably noninteractive. It just wants to play men fast and get them through, trampling or unblocked.


@Dozer

I'd like to leave this concept of "options" out of this, because I feel it is a very vague and discredited "theory" that cropped up in Star City when writing up a new "theory" just for the hell of it was in vogue.

Under this "options" theory, Dromar's Charm is worlds more powerful than Mana Drain, which I think says a lot.

[Conan_barberarn]

No card that can be played through the mana from only one land should warrant a FoW unless it's restricted or it's a hatecard aimed at my deck (i.e Tormod's if I play dragon etc.).

/Gustav

You probably missed out goblin welder, goblin lackey and possibly duress. Also, you should consider FOW a dark ritual because your opponent can follow it with duress and then play his moxes/lotus/stuff depending on what he sees.

Not all decks will FoW a 1st turn lackey, welder or duress. If he plays his moxen, lotus etc then that seems to include restricted cards right?

What do you think of the above as part of an restricted criteria? If a card that can be played through the mana of a single land allways meets FoW if you have it, it should be restricted right? This doesn't touch the mana accelerants which has to be covered in some other way.

/Gustav

[Androstanolone]

Some of the people who have been posting still say they don't have a clear idea of what interactivity is.  Dozer's explanation was pretty solid, but I thought I'd add my own idea of what interactivity is to the pool of ideas.  I see interactivity as the degree to which a deck is willing to alter its general game plan or to alter simply its immediate plan (its plan for the next turn or this turn) according to the game conditions.  Game conditions include everything from the turn, the opponent, the opponent's deck, cards in hand, life totals, what the opponent just played, what they played last turn, what they may play this turn, etc.

 Hardcore combo rarely alters its overall game plan (as do very few good vintage decks) and rarely alters its immediate plan.  If combo is on the draw and gets hymned by a sui black deck, it has undergone forced interactivity since those 2 cards probably had some role.  The degree of interactivity it has been forced into varies with the cards snatched.  Usually hardcore combo will choose to undergo the least amount of interactivity when a card is played to force it to interact by playing force of will on it.  But, in general, combo cares little for what the opponent is doing with the exception of a few hate cards, and will have more or less the same play next turn whether you play a land and say "go" or if you play a shop and a mox and drop a juggernaut.  Most other decks will interact with a turn 1 juggernaut but when faced with just a land will proceed with the original plan formulated when they got the original 7.  

So, about trinisphere, I have only dabbled a little in playing workshop decks but I played against them all the time, and think trinisphere did great things for the game.  It forced interactivity, forced decks to deal with it, to become more resilient in general and somewhat more versatile.    It was definitely an interactive card, and slowed the format down which wasn't a bad thing for vintage, with a fundamental turn of 2 at the latest.  Also, turn one shop-->trinisphere is a good play, a 2 card combo that gives a significant advantage.  But can you compare it to a truly broken turn 1 play during an older era, dark ritual --> necropotence.  I think not, that play has won more games than shop trini ever will, the advantage isn't even comparable.  And that's why necro needed the axe.  

In general, and perhaps I'm outdated or old fashioned, there are really only two kinds of cards that instantly beg restriction:  mana acceleration and card advantage.  The latter being dependent on the cost of course and the former the degree to which you are accelerated.  Turn one trinisphere wouldn't be such a problem without shop.  Turn 1 necro would be practically nonexistent without dark ritual.  These two things are what unbalance the game, not overly powerful cards, since these very powerful cards can usually be played around or generally are acceptable if their actual costs are paid.  There are a few exceptions, but trinisphere just plain wasn't one of them.

[Conan_barberarn]

Also, turn one shop-->trinisphere is a good play, a 2 card combo that gives a significant advantage.  But can you compare it to a truly broken turn 1 play during an older era, dark ritual --> necropotence.  I think not, that play has won more games than shop trini ever will, the advantage isn't even comparable.  And that's why necro needed the axe.  

Remember that land=>ritual=>necro involves three cards and is thus more unlikely than 1st turn trini. Yea, it's probable that you'll have a land to go with it but it reduces your chances. With a 2 card combo, you can mulligan to get it but that's close to impossible with a 3 card combo. Of course, necro is far better than trini if played on any turn except turn 0 and that's why necro got the axe.

/Gustav

[forests failed you]

I think that Androstanolone has indirectly hit on a good point.  Most of the really good Vintage decks have become so streamlined, that aside from Force of Will, they really have no good answers for resolved bombs.  The decks that flat out roll over to Trinisphere do so because they are so streamlined and focused on trying to win that a card like 3sphere, which disrupts their ability to play ten cheep spells and Tendrils, cannot be dealt with because the decks don’t bother playing with solutions.  The irony of this situation is of course that the decks most hosed by Trinisphere are clearly the most non-interactive decks that, because of their streamlined nature, don’t have room for solutions.

[Androstanolone]

Yes, when I said that trinisphere forces interactivty and forces other decks to deal with it, that's precisely what I was getting at forcefield.  People should stop complaining about losing to a card and instead start dealing with it like everyone else.  Trinisphere's restriction was a huge dissapointment to me, as it really was uncalled for and it seems to be the result of a lot of babies who refuse to change their decks around or try a different deck.

[VGB]

Trinisphere's restriction was a huge dissapointment to me, as it really was uncalled for and it seems to be the result of a lot of babies who refuse to change their decks around or try a different deck.

One could apply the exact same argument to people who oppose the restriction.

[Dozer]

I'd like to leave this concept of "options" out of this, because I feel it is a very vague and discredited "theory" that cropped up in Star City when writing up a new "theory" just for the hell of it was in vogue.

Under this "options" theory, Dromar's Charm is worlds more powerful than Mana Drain, which I think says a lot.

More options does not mean more power. The number of available options is an indicator for interactivity -- that does not mean that more interactivity is equal to more power! Dromar's Charm certainly offers more options than Mana Drain, and two of those options are interactive (life gain is definitely not). So yes, Dromar's Charm is more interactive than Mana Drain. But it is less powerful.

Interactivity and power are connected by one thing: If a player forces another player to interact and that player cannot, that is a very powerful play. That is what Androstanolone explained, and what also Mike Flores details in his article on interactivity (which I have finally read by now).

Also, this sounds like a direct spin-off "there are no wrong threats, only wrong answers". If you pose a threat and a player cannot deal with it, or deals with it wrongly, you are in an advantageous (sp?) position. This can be as simple as attacking when your opponent has no blockers, or as complex as playing Gifts Ungiven for Ancestral, Will, Tinker, Recoup. That is probably the most practical lesson that can be learned from the concept of interactivity: Resolving any game situation depends on interactivity, because if you do not affect the opposite player or his cards, you will eventually lose. The exception to this rule are obviously combo decks, which give the other player no time to force interaction, or even to pose any threat. That is why it is so important to delay combo decks.

The best example here is Belcher. If you can stop the first two turns, Belcher rarely makes a comeback, because they have invested so many resources just to get Belcher into play. Force them to interact, e.g. by doing something against your first turn FoW, and they will lose. Belcher cannot interact apart from the Belcher itself, maybe a Draw-7 and SB'ed Xanthid Swarms. Note how the additional interaction through the Swarms can turn games around in favour of Belcher.

Most of the really good Vintage decks have become so streamlined that aside from Force of Will, they really have no good answers for resolved bombs.

[...] Rack and Ruin is how you cheat the race. Because it is the fastest thing you can do after he plays Trinisphere, and the most decisive, you should play more. Maindeck.

I included the Doc's pre-restriction recommendation because it illustrates how many players seemingly ignore that it is necessary to respond if someone forces you to interact. It mirrors forcefield's assessment. But do you really have to? I think yes, but you can also answer a threat with a threat of your own. Most threats are interactive by nature, and we know that, at least in Magic, a bigger threat better is the best answer.
So to take this tidbit to a conclusive point, you don't need an answer to a bomb if you have a bomb of your own. You only need answers to break a stand-off, simliar to the Cold War scenario:

Both sides threaten each other with atomic bombs. Neither has the capability of destroying the other's bombs completely to escape a retaliation strike. (Sounds kinda like a cluttered game of Magic, doesn't it?)
Now, if one side has a (working) missile defense system, it can win the war. But if it only has the defense system, but not the weapons itself, it cannot win the war but is likely to lose it. Why? Because the other side develops better weapons and missiles, which forces interaction: The defense system has to get more sophisticated -- and very fast, if it comes to the worst.

Whoever forces the interaction here is likely to win the war. Likewise, as I said before (and that is also the essence of Flores' article), he who forces interaction on the other player has a higher chance of winning IF that player does not handle that correctly. Sometimes, they will have the answer and turn the tables.

What it comes down to is: Can the practical application of the concept of interactivity be translated into "put the other guy into a situation he cannot handle"? If so, being more interactive is not the important skill but choosing the correct option is. And since higher interactivity equals more options, having an interactive deck gives you a higher chance of having the correct option available -- that's basically flexibility, which leads me on a related tangent...

...does that mean that Dromar's Charm is good now? Well, we always knew it looks good on paper. But it has a lot of restrictions on it that come from the game. The price we pay for that kind of flexibility is too high (uncastable and too high mana cost) to compete with less flexible, but more powerful cards. Also, Dromar's Charm has lots of options, but only one at a time can be used. That gives Dromar's Charm the same level of interactivity as Mana Drain (or any other counter or removal spell). We see that flexibility is not equal to interactivity.

The question remains: Is the practical application of the concept of interactivity "put the other guy into a situation he cannot handle"?

Dozer

[rakso]

http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=276036

Any thoughts on this informal discussion between Mike Flores, Steve M, and myself?

[onelovemachine]

I told myself I wasn't going to rejoin this discussion.....

Are you forgetting about Burning Wish/LED? Just because people can look back at these cards and go "derf, they're broken, OBV OBV" doesn't change the fact that Long wasn't distorting tournaments when they were restricted.

There's no argument, just an observation:  I think a fundamental reason burning wish/led were restricted is based on what they do rather than what effect they had on the metagame.  Burning wish ended up being demonic tutors 2-5 in long.  It was a cheap tutor to the hand, kinda like consultation, that got a card, yawgs will, that has been discussed as being even too powerful for vintage.  Led is broken.  Used properly, like in this deck it was nearly black lotus.  I'm quite sure if wish were restricted and not led that it would still be played in a 4 of and used effectively.  Draw 7 could probably use 4 led pretty well.  

When comparing trinisphere to wish and led you must do so in relation to tournament data/ metagame dominance.  The actual basic brokenness of the cards don't compare.

[rakso]

I don't get the direct connection with the interactivity discussion.