Playskill in vintage compared to other formats

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

Me and Scott Limoges were having this discussion about playskill in t1 & t2.

Im not going trying to act like some "traitor". Even though I love t1 more then any other format, I do agree its less skill intensive.

During this converstation I DID SAY a lot of STUPID things, which might be right/wrong.  I don't know why, but I think it might be a great conversation to have.

EDIT: I DIDN"T HAVE THE FIRST PART, BUT SCOTT SENT IT TO ME
MethodX3k1: Kodoma of North Tree
MethodX3k1: GGG2
MethodX3k1: 6/4 trample
sCoTtLiMoGeS: cok legal?
sCoTtLiMoGeS: MethodX3k1: can't be the target of spells or abilities
MethodX3k1: yea
MethodX3k1: its a 5 mana 6 power creature with trample
MethodX3k1: who can't be targeted
MethodX3k1: lol
sCoTtLiMoGeS: thats good
sCoTtLiMoGeS: playing elves?
MethodX3k1: no
MethodX3k1: lol
sCoTtLiMoGeS: to power out the tree
MethodX3k1: stick to t1 scott
MethodX3k1: this part?
sCoTtLiMoGeS: MethodX3k1: lol
sCoTtLiMoGeS: main deck hate?
sCoTtLiMoGeS: lol
sCoTtLiMoGeS: the slowness can't be tolerated, no T2 for me
MethodX3k1:  its more skill intensive
MethodX3k1: then t1
sCoTtLiMoGeS: its relative
MethodX3k1: no on average it requires more skill
sCoTtLiMoGeS: Mike Long said T1 is more skill intensive
sCoTtLiMoGeS: T1 = less relevant phases
sCoTtLiMoGeS: k




sCoTtLiMoGeS: mike long is a magic pro player
MethodX3k1: yea
MethodX3k1: doesn't make him right
sCoTtLiMoGeS: pro players do not exist in type 1
MethodX3k1: if the president told you that the sky was orange
sCoTtLiMoGeS: pro players play "new" formats
MethodX3k1: is he automatically right
MethodX3k1: cuz he's the president
sCoTtLiMoGeS: new formats are slow
sCoTtLiMoGeS: T2 is slow
MethodX3k1: t2 is not slow
MethodX3k1: t2 is fast
MethodX3k1: its just that t1
MethodX3k1: is uber fast
MethodX3k1: cuz its broken fast
sCoTtLiMoGeS: turn 5 tree is slow
MethodX3k1: thats why its less skill intensive
MethodX3k1: that turn 5 tree comes out turn 3
MethodX3k1: in my deck
sCoTtLiMoGeS: lol
MethodX3k1: affinity drops free 2/2;s
MethodX3k1: and 2 mana 4/4's
MethodX3k1: mono green can drop a turn 2 troll aestetic
MethodX3k1: or simulacrum
sCoTtLiMoGeS: its an endless debate
MethodX3k1: its not
MethodX3k1: because the format is at a normal pace
MethodX3k1: its just fast this year
MethodX3k1: it requires more decisions
MethodX3k1: and there aren't many broken cards
MethodX3k1: that can swing the game over back and forth
sCoTtLiMoGeS: T1 there are more decitions with each card
MethodX3k1: unlike type 1
MethodX3k1: not really
MethodX3k1: like if i play t1
MethodX3k1: and i play a game perfectly
MethodX3k1: you td a tinker
MethodX3k1: or will
MethodX3k1: you can get some broken artifact
MethodX3k1: or just go broken
MethodX3k1: like there is nothing like that in t2
MethodX3k1: so the winner is usually the better players
MethodX3k1: or block
MethodX3k1: or even extended
MethodX3k1: like t1 has 2 many broken silly shit cards
MethodX3k1: that can negate all the decisions one has to make
MethodX3k1: in a game
MethodX3k1: you can play TERRIBLY
MethodX3k1: but draw tinker
MethodX3k1: and win
MethodX3k1: plus t1 players are coddled 2 much
MethodX3k1: don't get me wrong
MethodX3k1: i like the atmosphere thats why i play
sCoTtLiMoGeS: your point is T1 is more about luck than T2
MethodX3k1: yea it is
sCoTtLiMoGeS: however, the question is T1 is more skill intensive than t2
MethodX3k1: Because t1 is more about luck
MethodX3k1: its less skill intensive
MethodX3k1: luck supports skil
MethodX3k1: but it also negates skill
sCoTtLiMoGeS: luck is a separate factor than play skill
MethodX3k1: omg yea it is, but they affect each other soundly
sCoTtLiMoGeS: T1 there are more decitions/considerations
MethodX3k1: like what
MethodX3k1:  silence exactly
MethodX3k1: lol
sCoTtLiMoGeS: each card is more powerful, each card effects the game more
MethodX3k1: that does the opposite
MethodX3k1: if each card is more powerful
MethodX3k1: it does affect the game more
sCoTtLiMoGeS: luck + playskill = win %
MethodX3k1: thats why its less skill intensive
MethodX3k1: other formats don't have that many game breaking cards
sCoTtLiMoGeS: our debate is playskill only
MethodX3k1: i know
sCoTtLiMoGeS: breaking cards take more playskill to play perfectly
MethodX3k1: not really
MethodX3k1: will is will
MethodX3k1: tinker is tinker
MethodX3k1: welder is welder
MethodX3k1: because there aren't as many game breaking cards in other formats
MethodX3k1: it requires to ability to handle situations with cards you have
MethodX3k1: plus don't make me get into combat
MethodX3k1: t1 players are notoriously bad at combat
MethodX3k1: because they don't have 2
sCoTtLiMoGeS: welder gives many options
MethodX3k1: combat is ANOTHER facet of playskill
MethodX3k1: t1 players are TERRIBLE at combat
sCoTtLiMoGeS: Will gives many options
MethodX3k1: options don't mean more skill
sCoTtLiMoGeS: true
MethodX3k1: just cuz you have to make more decisions doesn't mean it requires more skill
MethodX3k1: the application of each individual decision compared the the whole of the game is more important
sCoTtLiMoGeS: T2 combate is more skill intensive then T1 combate
sCoTtLiMoGeS: the more decisions = the more skill
MethodX3k1: not always
sCoTtLiMoGeS: prove it
MethodX3k1: suppose i cast will
MethodX3k1: the majority of decisions are fairly obvious
MethodX3k1: like
MethodX3k1: you spent a whole game casting and dealing with broken spells, you cast will
MethodX3k1: its fairly obvious what happens next
MethodX3k1: you don't go Hmmm i might cast slieght of hand
MethodX3k1: its ok
MethodX3k1: ancestral
MethodX3k1: ok timewalk
MethodX3k1: dt
MethodX3k1: or
MethodX3k1: like tinker
MethodX3k1: blah blah
MethodX3k1: there's no skill to pointing at this card
MethodX3k1: going "heh, i remember this card, its good, maybe i should cast it again under will"
MethodX3k1: like the decisiions are right there in front of you
MethodX3k1: just cause you decide to play broken cards that affect the game more doesn't mean the decision was harder/easier
sCoTtLiMoGeS: its making the right decitions with the mana you have
MethodX3k1: you think thats a skill more intensive then t2?
MethodX3k1: a format where the mana is more constricted then t1
MethodX3k1: t1 has many mana loopholes
MethodX3k1: allowing you to get things into play at certain times that shouldn't happen, do nutty stuff
MethodX3k1: etc
MethodX3k1: too many enablers in t1
MethodX3k1: im putting this on TMD
MethodX3k1: for discussion
MethodX3k1: i gotta go anyway

Here is an addition to the convo i had with Rico Suave
MethodX3k1: Vass1127: T1 can be harder
Vass1127: there are more situations to be worried about
MethodX3k1: my friend says the there are even more difficult situations to get out in other formats
MethodX3k1: then t1
MethodX3k1: cuz in t1
MethodX3k1: there is more of a chacne
MethodX3k1: that a single cardc
MethodX3k1: will bail you out
Omnibrad: but, it's harder to get into those situations in T2
MethodX3k1: not aat all
Omnibrad: in T1, your opponent can go land, lotus, ancestral, sol ring, tinker
MethodX3k1: yea
MethodX3k1: then a clear winner
Omnibrad: that's hard to get out of
MethodX3k1: or someone who already has the advantage is starting to show
MethodX3k1: like
MethodX3k1: yea
MethodX3k1: it might be hard to get out of
MethodX3k1: but like clash of the titans type situatiosn
MethodX3k1: happend more on every other format
MethodX3k1: like standstills in a sense
MethodX3k1: and it requires skill to get out of them
MethodX3k1: there aren't many situations where 1 person is taking the beating the whole time
MethodX3k1: and the other person is giving it out
MethodX3k1: this is very good
MethodX3k1: we should add this in
Omnibrad: that's true
Omnibrad: T1 games by nature are more swingy
Omnibrad: I think the best way to put it is that in T2, skill is needed all the time, but in T1 it's only at selective moments
MethodX3k1: i agree
MethodX3k1: different types of skill
MethodX3k1: i can live with that
MethodX3k1: can i put this up?
Omnibrad: sure
Omnibrad:


Im not really supporting any view, im playing devil's advocate.

[Zherbus]

I have to agree and disagree all at once.

I've been playing block A TON lately, and it's not at all that hard to pilot the decks that are out right now. Building something better that what the Pro's have established is rough, but playing Affinity, Ironworks, or Tooth and Nail perfectly is nothing like making some of the decisions in type 1.

In type 1, you can randomly lose or win based off the game-swinging cards like will and tinker. That's where you are getting your arguement that type 1 is less skill intensive. What you're missing is its harder to NOT lose in type 1 in the face of such brokenness.

Listen, with Affinity against like Ironworks, you go for the throat and hope that between the beats and Disciple you can nail them before they resolve Ironworks and Incubator. THAT is your very rough and basic game path to victory.

With Type 1, there is not only your basic game plan to follow, but your path to victory has to include 'how do I not lose to Will, Tinker, Welder, Null Rod, a Draw 7, etc.' ALSO, determining a metagame model for type 1 is insanely more complicated than a format with like 4 archtypes.

[Toad]

T1 is the least skills intensive format. Everybody can win through brokeness and opening hands. That's because the format is too fast to be reliant on skills. You usually don't plan on outplaying your opponent, you just want to outbroken him.

[Bram]

Thank you for that Smmenen quote.

While the above may or may not be true, when two decks are equally broken (an extreme example of this would be the perfect mirror match), over any large amount of games, the person with the larger amount of skill will win more often.

You may claim brokenness is more important than skill in our format, but that certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't develop it.

On another note: I think you guys are confusing 'lack of skill' with 'lack of necessity for skill'. I agree the player skill in type one is, on average, lower than in other formats (among other things because there is an increased need in other formats to understand EXACTLY how the stack works because of the importance of the attack step, which is obviously less of an issue for type one). Also, since prize support is worse, there's less of an incentive for people to hone their skills, and since the player base is smaller, 'natural' talents are less likely to float to the top.

It is my opinion that: yes, there is less skill in type one, and no, there is not necessarily less skill required for playing type one well. In other words: by and large, we suck, but we shouldn't :-)

[Rico Suave]

My theory is that T2 requires skill all the time to win.  Some games will be decided by luck, but a vast majority of games are decided by who is the better player.

In T1, you don't need skill all the time to win since you can drop a random swingy card and just win.  I do believe though that T1 has the most skill-intensive decisions than any other format.  Having a deeper level of skill will pay off more in T1, since you're put into more situations where critical decisions will either win you the game or blow up in your face big time.  

Take DeathLong for instance, or any heavily-restricted combo deck for that matter.  Trying to play that deck absolutely perfectly is more difficult to do than anything T2 can offer.  

So while T1 doesn't require playskill all the time to win, when you do need to use your skill you really need to use it.

[jpmeyer]

Affinity is a great example of a deck that is extremely skill intensive but is written off by people that aren't as good with it as "dumb luck."  This is because the deck has tons of little plays that most people don't even think about while they're making them.  I'm talking stuff like planning out the next three turns in advance to decide whether to use that Chromatic Sphere now or to save it in case you need it to power Affinity.

Then, because there are fewer swingy cards in Standard these decision start to accumulate and actually matter.  In Type 1, you might not blow that fetchland at the proper time and therefore your mana isn't at the right spot, but look, you just Brainstormed into two Moxes, which fixes that problem.

Also, on the "how do I not lose to Tinker/Will/etc." question, this is much more luck dependent as well.  Mana acceleration is the big culprit here.  The best example of a card like this in Standard is Rude Awakening.  When your opponent hits that 8th mana, he will also probably have drawn Rude Awakening by this point and probably will be able to kill you with it.  But since Rude Awakening has a cost that's fixed in stone (since it's based on the number of lands that you have) and is run in multiples, you know when to expect it so you can tailor your deck/playstyle around winning before it/being able to deal with it/whatever.

In Type 1, the random small child that you're playing against may play totally into say, Balance because he's not a good enough player to consider it, yet it may not even matter since you only have one in your deck anyway.  And conversly, it really doesn't matter if your opponent has a gameplan to win before Will is a concern if you cast Will on turn 3 for Lotus, Ancestral, Walk, StP, etc. off a Mana Drain that countered say, Gilded Lotus.

Restricted cards+mana acceleration=impossible to plan when plays may occur, thus allowing people to play horribly and randomly win or well and still randomly lose.

[Bram]

In T1, you don't need skill all the time to win since you can drop a random swingy card and just win.

You need skill all the time in order to determine when you need it and when you don't.

Look, there's just 3 things that determine your success.

1. Deck choice, which has two aspects:
- individual card / overall deck power level
- suitability for your metagame
2. Luck, which has two aspects:
- pairing-related luck
- luck in drawing etc.
3. Skill.

Your task is to maximise all these aspecs. Obviously, this is harder for some than for others (and impossible in one case). This is true for every format.

When you maximise the aspects you can exert influence upon like deck choice aspects, you're left with skill. No matter how important or trivial it might be in any given format compared to a different one, assuming that your opponent also maximised on the deck choice aspect, relative skill will be the factor that decides if you win.

Is it easier to hone your skills in T1 because the skill required to play a given deck is lower? Possibly. But that just means it's easier for other people to do the same. Which means you need to become even better. You will always need it to have a consistent shot at winning tournaments.

[jpmeyer]

Skill in Type 1 has always seemed logarithmic to me.  Little bits of skill early on add up really fast, but then you get to a point where the gains from your increased skill level start to taper out.

[rvs]

T1 is the least skills intensive format. Everybody can win through brokeness and opening hands. That's because the format is too fast to be reliant on skills. You usually don't plan on outplaying your opponent, you just want to outbroken him.

while this may be true to some extent, why is it that usually the best players also win the most?

[Mykeatog]

When is everyone going to realize that type 1 and type 2 are different games, and are not as easily comparable as it would seem.

[Zherbus]

Exactly!

[Shock Wave]

T1 is the least skills intensive format. Everybody can win through brokeness and opening hands. That's because the format is too fast to be reliant on skills. You usually don't plan on outplaying your opponent, you just want to outbroken him.

while this may be true to some extent, why is it that usually the best players also win the most?

... you beat me to it Rudy. That seems to defy the notion that "T1 is all about broken plays, resolving Yawgmoth's Will, blah blah". Has everyone forgotten that Fish ruled T1 for a really long time, and that Fish is also the antithesis of "brokenness" ?

If T1 is all about broken plays, why is it that good players always seem to win the big events? If you disagree, show me someone in the T8 of a big T1 event who did not deserve to be there. I don't know, but it seems to me that all the players in the T8 at Gencon were pretty damn good, and that seems to generally be the case.

There's a huge misconception that you can just stuff a bunch of broken cards in a deck and automatically be a contender to win a tourney. This *can* happen, but it doesn't happen often enough to conclude that "T1 is all about being more broken that your opponent."

T1 is influenced by playskill just as much as any other format. There's luck in *every* format but the fact that luck is a factor doesn't make any format more "skill intensive" than any other.

[Machinus]

This analysis touches on but does not consider where the real difficulty in Type 1 comes from.

In Type II, you have a small card pool, maybe 1500 cards or somewhere around there. Now, that number would be significant on its own, but consider that 40% of those cards are part of a preconstructed mechanics system, and another 40% are part of ANOTHER preconstructed mechanics system. There is much less room for innovation here.

Following this, the main decks and the metagame become identified at blazing speed, compared to Type 1. The common matches quickly degenerate into who drops the lin sivvi first, or do you have the edict for my mongrel, or did I draw a skullclamp, or are you going to wrath on turn 4. The matches are no longer about making tough decisions and outsmarting your opponent. Type 2 is a technical format. You win by predicting what you are going to face and playing the right cards. Once you have drawn your hand and started the game, the outcome of the match depends on what you draw.

In Type 1, it is easy to get distracted by Yawgmoth's Will or Tinker. These cards have a big effect on the game. But like Oscar said recently in one of his articles, it is not the flashy game swinging-effects of these cards that make you win, it is the complicated setup that leads to them that allows you to generate the big effect. You don't play horribly for three turns and then win when you cast Will. You have to play well anyway.

The most complicated decisions in all of magic occur at a definite point. It s right after you submit your decklist and right before you announce that you are keeping your hand. There are many many factors that have to be considered before you even start to play a game of magic. In odyssey-onslaught standard, if you had island + careful study in your hand, it was almost always good enough to keep. The game is SO much more quantized in the slower environment. It IS slower. Deciding how to play the first three turns of the game involves many decisions that are not visible to the average magic player who might be watching. If you watch someone like Smmenen or another good player play tendrils, you might think that "hey, that is just a pile of brokenness, anyone can with with that," but storm combo is definitely one of the hardest decks to play.

Type 1 cards are more versatile and powerful than other cards. Type 1 decks have a much higher element of chance in what you draw, and good decision making is required to pilot them successfully. Your opponent is allowed to play with all the same cards that you do, and they have to face the same difficult problems that you do. The difference is that the shift in the game is much greater if you make a mistake, and your opponent can capitalize it much more severely. It is more difficult to play a game of vintage magic than standard.

[Razvan]

Maybe I am totally off my perch... if skill is so utterly irrelevant, as some make it seem, why is it that the same players always seem to do well (and/or generally win)?

[walkingdude]

I haven’t played modern formats like type 2 for a while so this is a bit out of date but I think the basics may still be sound. The last time I was really in on a modern format was the block where you played ug madness, ug threshold, or one of the mono black builds.

Playing black back then I found that once I was in control I could play terribly and still reliably win my games even against good people (ie real pros). There was nothing swingy or powerful enough in the format to really present a threat when I had a natuku shade and a fistful of removal. When I looked at my mana I never needed to think, “What’s the best way to use this? Should I pump for three extra damage or mirrri this spell?� It honestly didn’t matter. In type 1 even when I’m in a solid position my opponent could always top deck a will or balance or ancestral or… The consequence of this in that in a type 1 game I feel there is always pressure to maximize your recourses. You always have to think about what will let you kill your opponent as quickly as possible, you always have to have a plan if your opponent top decks will.

[MuzzonoAmi]

Which is one of the larger causes of the disappearance of the less skill-intensive decks (Sligh, Sui, Stompy) from the format, and what makes it revolve around 5 axes rather than a "rock-paper-scissiors" interaction. While we can all agree that these decks lost power largely because of decks like TnT and GAT, the fact remains that they had no answers to an opponent topdecking Will or Tinkering out something broken. The decks couldn't change gears in the post-4Gush GAT world where brokenness increased dramatically and the top tier decks were the ones that could take multiple approaches to the same game. The mindless decks lacked this ability, and so were selected against during the evolution of the format. As a result, we see the only decks that can't change gears being the combo decks that kill so quickly that it is nearly impossible to stop them by simply 'going broken' with a Balance, Will, Tinker, etc. and these decks are admittedly very skill intensive, especially when confronted with cards like Null Rod and Trinisphere (where the correct play is very seldom "Just cast Hurkyl's/Rebuild").

And it's generally accepted that the deckbuilding constraints and metagaming descisions are much more taxing in Type 1 than type 2.

[kirdape3]

Type 1's playskill requirement is not generally that high.  Making the 'little plays' with your deck generally isn't so hard since those 'little plays' will not often be relevant when you resolve Will, Balance, Tinker, or some other entirely unfair card.

Most of the skill requirement in this format is about metagaming, deckbuilding, plan decisions, and proper sideboarding.  Sure, if you're a master you can actually not do half of these things and still win, but for me I'd rather have the best deck for the metagame I'm anticipating, know what plan I need to be following, and how to evade common methods of attack against you.  That's all ANY Constructed format is about.

[Bram]

Noone seems to be getting what I'm saying.

All other things* being equal, skill will be the deciding factor. And all other things may well be equal, especially in proxy tournaments where everyone reads TMD (thus ensuring that at least some people will have an equal power level), where 'luck' is generally minimized in good decks anyway (also: its effect reduces as the number of games played increases).

Skill is an incremental thing. We should be talking about relative skill. You have a skill advantage if you're better than your opponent. If it's easy to aquire said skill, than you'll just have to increase it even further in order to Beat The Man.

*=other things being power level (individual card and deck choice) and luck.

[dandan]

I think the average playing skill in Type I is almost certainly lower than in Type II. However, the required skill for optimal play in Type I is actually higher than in Type II, largely because of widespread cheap search/dig and the penalty for incorrect play is far harsher.

Type II has far more combat and therefore more combat maths but this pales in comparison with Type I permission, anti-permission, search, dig, land options and creature abilities (ever had 20 life and got killed by a 1/2 attacking once in Type II?)

The lack of this skill and the obviously high skill requirement combine to make it obvious that there is a skill deficit. Other formats have a relatively large number of players who can play at near-optimum level.

Don't let the fact that individual matchups and lucky draws can yield results, a skillful player has a bigger advantage in Type I than in Type II. You just have a lot more choices to get wrong in a format that punishes mistakes most severely.

(Blah, blah, Vinatge, Standard, blah, blah)

P.S. The average skill level in Type I is low, there are people worse than ME.

[Gabethebabe]

Bram: what you´re saying it not really point of discussion. Skill will always matter. Under equal circumstances and with a statistically significant amount of games, so with all other conditions evened out, skill wil define the outcome of a match.

For me skill is not related to T2 or T1. It is related to decks. Skill comes with experience. You can be an utterly awesome T2 player and fare bad in T1 or visa versa. You can be a skilled Fish player and suck at Dragon.

In all Magic formats there are a variety of decks that require a variety of skill levels. Look at a prison deck. To pilot a prison deck is what I mean not very skill intensive (to design it appropriately for the metagame and understand how to mulligan is more skill intensive than to play the damn thing). For me it is even easier than Sligh, where you often have to make the choice whether you put maximum pressure or not, with the risk of running into Balance.

Prison just jumps his hand. Jee, how hard can that be?

Playing Control is always skill intensive. Playing combo the hardest (on occasions) because it takes even more decisions.

[Toad]

For me skill is not related to T2 or T1. It is related to decks. Skill comes with experience. You can be an utterly awesome T2 player and fare bad in T1 or visa versa. You can be a skilled Fish player and suck at Dragon.

Every two monthes, we have a big non proxi T1 tourney in Paris. Last week end was the 7th edition and two french pros came, Gabriel Nassif and Antoine Ruel. They had never played their decks before (respectively UWB Control and UR Stax). They had no experience with the T1 metagame or with the good decks in T1. Nassif won the tournament. Ruel is second. Experience with their decks? Better metagaming? No. Skills.

The average skill of a T1 player is generally FAR below the average skill of a PTQ player. And yes, I wrote PTQ. Not PT or GP.

[Kowal]

On the other hand, Aaron Forscythe went like 2-3 at Richmond.

[The M.E.T.H.O.D]

To add to what Toad said, at the Gamemasters tourney Adam Horvath (PT Player) and Craig Krempels (Nationals Champ) have never played t1 before and they took a 4 month year old tog list and played it to an undeafeted record to t8.

[Bram]

A nonsensical comparison if I ever heard one.

Tom vd Logt (GotRealLucky on these boards) picked up the Vintage game rather recently and quickly became one of our top players. Yeah, he's better than us. He's also a former world champion. See what I'm getting at?

I'm sure that if T1 were as broad and supported as T2 is, there would be no noticable differemce in playskill levels. The level is only lower at this point in time because it doesn't need to be higher. And as soon as there's something at stake, it does.

[rvs]

A nonsensical comparison if I ever heard one.

Tom vd Logt (GotRealLucky on these boards) picked up the Vintage game rather recently and quickly became one of our top players. Yeah, he's better than us. He's also a former world champion. See what I'm getting at?

I'm sure that if T1 were as broad and supported as T2 is, there would be no noticable differemce in playskill levels. The level is only lower at this point in time because it doesn't need to be higher. And as soon as there's something at stake, it does.

huh? What exactly are you saying?

[Bram]

Was that sarcasm, or what?

I'm saying that above-par performance by pros if they play Vintage for a change can hardly be an argument for concluding that the average skill level in the vintage community is lower. Ofcourse they'll do better in any given field. Some of them play this game for a living.

And I was also saying that, while skill level may well actually be lower, there's a good reason for that (less incentive).

[CF]

That pros do well like in the stories being told here is probably not only because they play perfectly, but because their opponents play nervously and do mistakes. This is an extremely common phenomenon among less experienced players - letting the seriousness of the tournament or the accomplishments of their opponent get to them.

I've sometimes seen MY opponents' hands shaking, so imagine what random scrub facing Nassif, probably the best player in the world, goes through :o)

--
Chris

[jpmeyer]

Yeah, this pro thing seems kinda tangential.  What it does say to me though is that Type 1 isn't this island onto itself that requires like radically different skills or whatever that can only be learned after like playing Type 1 exclusively or something.

Personally, I think that that sort of an inclusive message is a good thing for Type 1.

[Mykeatog]

I hadn't said much because this conversation is gay, but here is something for you all to swallow.

At PT: Columbus three hours before the T1 side event, Buddha, and Osep (2 german pro's), borrowed cards from me to play in the type 1 tournament happening that day. Twenty minutes before the event began Osep brought me back my Control Slaver deck and said "I can't handle this format."

And seriously guys, this debate is as homosexual as ass sex.