Questions, queries and curiosities...an outsider looking in.

[Genju of the Wicked]

Although I have read much of the available literature/articles (etc) on the game and am beginning to formulate a very basic understanding of how Vintage (and the game overall, in all formats) "works" in a general gameplay sort of sense, I am still completely in the dark concerning the metagame(s) and the overall Magic Community.  So a few noobish questions (please bear with me here) and thanks in advance for all the help.

I just finished reading this post: http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=23130.0   

I could not post any questions before it was locked, so many will be stemming from what is contained there, if anyone would like to use it for reference.   Also please keep in mind that if some of my questions come across as sarcastic, or appear not so much as questions but as sardonic observations,  I am not attempting to be cynical, but more to elicit a genuine response (rather than the typical pat-on-the-head-and-off-you-go responses that are so often fed to us "noobs" 

1) What is a "mirror match" or "mirror tournament"?

2) Are there any "professional" Vintage tournaments? (if I am using the term professional incorrectly see question 3d)

3) The above link contains several allusions and direct references to the fact that the Vintage format is not well respected among the "pro" players.  Several questions on this point:

a) What is the reasoning for Vintage having less respect?  Does it have to do with the fact that it allows for use of all of the most broken cards?

b) What format is most respected among the "pros"? 

c) I read somewhere on Wizards' site that Standard is the most popular format.  Is this true?  If so, do you think that it's popularity over Vintage stems simply from the fact that cards are more accessible, or is it possible that the game is actually more challenging/involves more skill since there are few/no broken cards (and I know you can argue that since all sides may use the broken cards in Vintage it balances itself out and the skill-level is either the same or greater, but I would hope that someone could come up with a better counter-point than that)?

d) I have heard a lot about "pro" magic players.  What exactly does being a professional player in the game entail?  I'm quite sure that no one can make a decent living on playing the game alone (if you want to argue this point, then you might save yourself some time by reading the next question first).   I assume it must then be some combination of winning paying tourneys and getting your name out there....but why assume when one of you can tell me what it means so I can stop rambling.....

e) This is not from the above link, but following from the previous question I have heard someone referred to as the "Magic Millionaire" on various forums.   Who is this person and why is he(/she) referred to as such?  [And if anyone even tries to tell me that this is more than a cute colloquialism and someone (other than the inventor/wizards/vendors) actually has made over a million playing this game I will kick a bunny in the face.  So don't even try it....unless you hate rabbits].

f) This question might sound idiotic or self-answering to start but why are "pros" and certain other individuals given so much adoration and outright worship in this game?  I fully understand that there will be some skilled players deserved of respect.  Much like in sports there will be individuals who excel, and who will be best at providing insight into the game's mechanics (as well as gaining a fan-base)   But come on, certain individuals (or teams, for that matter) seem to be known by first name by everyone and their word treated as law.  Some guy, don't remember who it was, and don't care ("oh no! that's sacrilege" I can hear so many of you declaring, and just driving my point home....although my apologies if the person was anyone in charge of this particular forum  ) decreed that mono-blue control was dead a while back, and it was only after that that it died out.  I'm sure you could argue that it died afterwards because people slowly realized what this gaming-god had more quickly found, that mono-blue control was no longer viable in the current metagame.  But I'm willing to bet nickles to nightmares that it was simply the travelling word of a magic god (or whoever) that brought it down (before you argue with me about whether mono-blue is dead and whether that was ever claimed by one of the "greats", calm down, read what I just said again, and realize that's not at all my point or question, and that I could very well be wrong....that's why I qualified all of these statements in my opening blurbs.)

4) And my last question for the night (because I think I am getting a little cynical since I'm so tired, and that was not the intended tone of this post, although my cynicism may be at its height in this last question):

(Relating to my last question) Does creativity have no part in the Vintage community?  Now, before you decide to berate me for my noobish idiocy, hear me out (I'm too lazy to put these last points into any sort of flowing prose, so you get some point form):

i) In reference to tournament play (setting aside casual, that is) at any given time there are only ever a few deck archtypes that are regularly discussed and considered viable.  Most others are dismissed out of hand as 'not being able to stand up to the flavour of the month's speed/countering/whatever'.  This would not be so bad if it were just specific decks or builds being left behind, but it seems entire archtypes (not just decks or builds) are thrown out, all because this guy/team plays this deck and has had some success.  It seems people are quick to throw away decent archtypes in favour of netdecking the latest flavour, rather then trying to see what the old archtype might offer in light of some creative modifications.

ii) In those few decks that are considered viable at any given time, there seems to be no creative thought or divergence from the norm.  All posted deck lists look almost exactly the same, save a splash of this color or a different ratio of that card.   And when people post them on forums, they act as if they have made some ground breaking move.  "Look everyone! I'm running the exact same dragon/combo deck as everyone else running combo, but I'll say it's mine b/c I've Sideboarded 3 Null Rods instead of 4.  Praise me for my ingenuity and tell me how much I matter in the scheme of dragon/combo decks" .... maybe that's a bad example, but you get the point.  (And I do realize that the Vintage format is both very "tight" and fast-paced, so small changes can make a difference, but I'm not sure that that fact speaks to my overall point. )

iii) Shhhh! Creativity must be secret and can only be employed by the top teams (unless you are resigning to casual, then you're free to be as creative as you want).  From what I have read (and please keep in mind that all of these questions/observations are only based on the articles I have read, and observing forum conversations for the past few months) it seems that creativity will only be praised when it is introduced by one of the top teams at some tourney (who must guard it closely beforehand).  If anyone normal/average player posts a different or "out there" deck in a forum, for example, it is given no notice, although it might hold great potential.   I attended my first local unofficial vintage proxy tourney recently (as a spectator, not yet a competitor) and watched a friend play his deck (which I thought to be fairly novel) knock out the top 3 netdecks, while those playing the cookie-cutters continued to mock my friend for his card choices.  I know a local tourney really isn't comparable to serious competitive vintage play....but maybe in some ways the situation I observed is analogous to the current state of affairs regarding creativity in the competitive community.  And when a popular or sucessful Team whoever pulls out their new Oathbelchertoganimatordrainsl iverorbworkshop it becomes the talk of the town regardless of how it actually performs.  (I realize the sports analogy works well here too, but my point it I think the format might move forward much more quickly if people were willing to look for gems elsewhere.) 

iv) There are a million posts and articles out there full of people espousing the benefits of creativity, and everyone always seems to nod in agreement with them, but then in practice creativity seems to be (unintentionally) scorned at every turn.....


More questions to come, I'm sure, but I'll stop for now as I'm very tired and apparently (from reading the preview of this post) a little grumpy.

Thanks in advance for putting up with my questions, and any answers/debate is appreciated!

[Freelancer]

I will try my best to answer some of these questions (my English is not top-notch so I might have some things backward in understanding the questions )

1)
A mirror match is a match between decks who are practically equal (barring a couple of personal choices) and thus both have equal chances in the match (if both builds are almost identical) and thus playskill makes a lot of difference.
I am not entirely certain what you mean with a "mirror tournament" I never heard of anything like that before.

2)
Waterbury, gencon, starcitygames and the latest France championship are all considered strong representatives of the vintage overall metagame or as you call it "professional" vintage tournaments (the France championships is probably the best representative). These are also the biggest tournaments out there as far as I am aware (unless I am forgetting a few that is).

3)
a)
Well at the birth of this format it was mostly considered a casual format, since than the format has grown and became more competitive over time. However the pay out structure is still a lot lower than in a regular (big) standard/extended tournament, the competition level is also a lot lower than in a PT or qualifier than in most big vintage tournaments. With competition level I mean how far people are willingly to go to win the tournament, for instance in vintage you will rarely see so called 'rules lawyers' but in big standard/extended tournaments these are much more prevalent. Also people are willingly to prepare a lot more for a big standard/extended tournament than for a vintage tournament.

b) I would say standard, extended and limited. Vintage and legacy are much much lower on there list than most other formats.

C) Yes standard is the most popular format. Mostly because that is where the most cash is to win. The competition level is also much higher than in vintage which usually means that you have to tighten your play. If you make a mistake you can bet that your opponent will capitalize on that, also in vintage if you make mistake you can still win through topdecking a broken card.

d,e and f) I don't know a lot about pro players because I am hardly interested in them. So I won't be able to answer these questions. However I must say that I respect most pro's but I hardly follow there advice and; 'jump of a ridge when they jump of a ridge'. However these people have proved themselves worthy and there explanations should at least be considered somewhat true. I think that people follow the pro's a lot more in standard than in vintage, but again I might be wrong I am hardly interested in pro's so I don't follow what they are up with. I mostly follow there strategic articles as guidelines and there deck articles to see how to play against that particular deck and/or to see what the average scrub will play in the next tournament.
Minor point: In vintage people tend to play certain decks over longer periods of time because they are most familiar with them and they don't have to change decks (changing decks is almost a month to month business in standard while you can play a certain deck for years on end in vintage).

4) A lot of information regarding this question is in this post; http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/index.php?topic=23250.0. I suggest you read it there is a lot of interesting/good stuff there.

[Jacob Orlove]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=sideboard/facts/winnings
Yeah, I hate bunnies.

For "c", Standard is most played because almost all Friday Night Magic and local events tend to be Standard tournaments. That's where the attendance numbers come from. It's actually not as profitable for players as other formats, because there is no Standard Pro Tour.

For "d", see the above link. Wizards does in fact give away millions of dollars in prizes, and some people can consistently win that money.

For "e", they're talking about David Williams. Google found me this random bio. For the lazy, he's a magic pro who won a few million at the World Series of Poker.

[Nefarias]

2) Are there any "professional" Vintage tournaments? (if I am using the term professional incorrectly see question 3d)

Not in the same respect that there are for other formats. While Freelancer mentioned some highly competitive events, all were welcome at those tournies. Traditionally, if you hear an internet writer use the word pro or "semi-pro," it means that the player successfully qualified and player in the Pro Tour, which is invite only. Even the only major Vintage tournament sponsored by Wizards (GenCon) is open to anyone and everyone.

3) The above link contains several allusions and direct references to the fact that the Vintage format is not well respected among the "pro" players.  Several questions on this point:

a) What is the reasoning for Vintage having less respect?  Does it have to do with the fact that it allows for use of all of the most broken cards?

Others touched on these points, but I'd like to elaborate. Vntage isn't respected by the pros because they do not have to play Vintage to become a pro. A grasp of nearly every other format-Standard, Block, Extended, Limited-is required to be a successful and respect pro player, but Vintage and Legacy are left out of the equation. They don't play it, and it didn't contribute to their success, so they don't care about it. I don't think it's a lack of respect, but rather a lack of giving a damn. Though I'm sure some have a negative attitude towards the format, I'd imagine most just have an indifferent one.

If Wizards sponsored Vintage and made it a worthwhile monetary event, it would likely garner the same treatment that the other formats get. It is highly unlikely that that will ever happen, though, due to the high barrier of entry and Wizards' stances on proxies and reprinting power. Many believe that's why all the most expensive cards got the ax in legacy--so that Wizards/DCI coudl start supporting it more.

In their defense, though, it does take a lot more to win a GP, nevermind PT, than it does to win even the most competitive and huge Vintage tourney. While I'm not sure of the exact numbers, even average GPs are many times larger than our largest tournaments, require two days to complete, can have 10+ rounds of Swiss, and cut to Top 64 instead of just Top 8. So, even if you're first seed after Swiss, you still have to win 6 more rounds to take it all.

b) What format is most respected among the "pros"?

c) I read somewhere on Wizards' site that Standard is the most popular format.  Is this true?  If so, do you think that it's popularity over Vintage stems simply from the fact that cards are more accessible, or is it possible that the game is actually more challenging/involves more skill since there are few/no broken cards?

This is where I think it is interesting. Standard is indeed the most played format, but as stated, it's only because of FNM's (I think Arena might be Standard-only too, not sure.) While all sponsored formats are respected by pros, I get the impression that Extended is probably the most so, because it is the most broken. I don't really know how to best explain this, and there is no real evidence of this, but writers and such seem most excited when talking about Extended compared to say Standard, Block, or Limited. The fields are more diverse, the decks are more broken, and so it takes more to win. I could be wrong, but it seems like--the majority, anyway--appreciate Extended the most.

[Moxlotus]

iv) There are a million posts and articles out there full of people espousing the benefits of creativity, and everyone always seems to nod in agreement with them, but then in practice creativity seems to be (unintentionally) scorned at every turn.....

Because most of the time "creativity" leads to terrible decks.  Cutting Mana Leaks for Arcane Denials is terrible, but some call this creative.  It's just terrible.  Cutting Brainstorms and Yawg Will for Abeyance in Control Slaver is terrible-not creative.  Creativity is encouraged, if its actually good.

Big teams are known for a reason-they're good.  They repeatedly finish in top 8s of major events with almost any deck they play.  There is a reason to respect them.  They are not however the only ones who innovate-the Canadians have brought Dragon and Landstill into Vintage and they are usually not given their due credit.  People are talking a decent amount about "Rivers Affinity" and UBA STAX.  Rivers Affinity was Jesse Rivers playing with his dad and a few pals(???) and UBA Stax was developed by a local Team Ogre from St. Louis.  Big names teams place well because they include double digits of members, are good players, and are good deck developers.

[Hi-Val]

Also on the topic of creativity, people do take notice, but they may not come right out and say it. When a lot of the Ohio meandeckers got slammed around by Oath in one of the Columbus tournaments with the Akroma/Spirit setup, we studied the decklist, talked with the creator and got a grasp of how the deck worked. Then we put 4 people in the T8 at Richmond with it. We didn't want to tip our hand to everyone else about the deck, but we certainly did embrace an outside idea.

Along with what Moxlotus said, most ideas are bad ones. You don't see bad ideas coming from big teams because they determine that they are bad internally. Trust me, making a good deck and innovating is really hard work. The Meandeck development forums are full of our ideas, mostly failed. Looking at it now, I see that we've tried TnT, Stasis, many Mask decks, one using decree of annihilation, etc. They would rightly get laughed at if posted publicly. However, it's not like we come up with only good ideas. We have an internal peer review that goes on beforehand that most people don't have, so their bad ideas don't get weeded out like ours do before they hit publicly.

I think it's largely a myth that creativity gets scorned in Vintage and that nobody pays attention to new stuff and that you have to be on a team to produce a deck that gets noticed. I think the people who say that have been burned by posting bad decks and not realizing they were bad until other people had to tell them. I know I've never stifled creativity or locked a thread because the deck was bad in my moderatorship at SCG. I've found that the policies are mostly similar here at TMD.