Are we missing something

[Matt]

As for being narrowminded, could someone point out a deck that has been a result of TMD members working together that's done well recently?

Recently? How abot ever? Nothing's coming to mind but I haven't paid much attention here in awhile.

[Bram]

Theories on technological evolution can be applied to Magic deck innovation.

Most, if not all, theories on technological innovation stress how important it is for relative outsiders (with little ties to the dominant regime) and left-field innovators to be in the network. It doesn't matter if they agree with us, or if we agree with them. The relationship is still symbiotic; their 'out there' ideas that are the result of uncomventional thinking and actually have the promise to work, are 'stolen'  by us. In return, we tweak the innovation to incorporate it into the current regime: we give the original thinker an actual decent, playable and metagamed deck based on his idea.

We should be glad people like Marco exist. People willing top put in the hours, examining cards we wouldn't look at twice as if their life depended on it, knowing full well that 90% of the time (or more) it will amount to nothing. Inefficient? Yes. Not the way I (or most of you) would go about it? Yes. Useful? Yes.

Marco is an 'ueber-Johnny' player type, like MaRo described in yersterday's article. These people are not the prime locus of the, mostly incremental, innovation and optimisation proicess, as that's generally a role taken by the dominant regime. They are however A locus for radical innovation. Radical innovation, designed in protected niches like casual play, will most of the time not break out of its niche. Much like technological niches, initially they will likely have relatively poor performance compared to the dominant decks. However, when the dominant regime is under stress (which happens frequently as a result of B/R announcements), these niches might break out if properly adressed.

The whole pseudo-flamewar in this thread is the result of Marco sharing his views in a rather confronting manner. One might wonder why he does so; I'm guessing it's because his method of deckbuilding has been ridiculed by us, the dominant regime, in that past and continues to be ridiculed today. I'd say we need to agree to disagree and recognise the potential for success on both sides of the argument.

[Eastman]

It is nice that you're willing to spend so much time thinking outside of the box, but honestly you'll only get a few golden nuggets out of a huge amount of spent time. Even then you have to convince people it's good with actual reasoning. If you can't do that, you can find all the 'outside the box' awesomeness you want and nobody will take you seriously. That's not everyone elses fault, that's your own fault for not being able to explain why it's so good.

Hell yes.

All deckbuilders have bad ideas, come up with crappy deck designs, and analyze strategies that do not work. The 'good' deckbuilders understand that the process usually results in just another discarded deck idea. We aren't restricting our thoughts and analyses as much as Purple Hat suggests, we merely restrict what we post here.

My point is that I, and as far as I know all the other T1 deckbuilders, do not come down as hard as the first post suggests on 'bad' ideas. We test them out and recognize that they suck on our own time. That is something that never makes it to this forum.

[BigMac]

Eastman, i see your point and agree partially with it. I understand people will put together a deck and try it out sometimes. And when they try it out and it sucks in their eyes they discard it altogether without further notice and don't feel that posting something about it is worth the time.

There is however another side to that point one should not forget. Does everybody trying out an idea really understands the idea behind the deck and thus knows how to play it correctly. I think we will all agree that when a player plays a certain deck for a long time he will know it, understand it and thus recognisably play that deck well. Put together a random netdeck.dec and it is not a sure thing he will do well with it while others swear it is a very good if not dominating deck. My point, take a random deck and you will not perse understand its engine correctly. As we established that, it takes time to fully understand a deck.

A good anecdote about this was a couple of years back (way way way back). We played in a little tournament and i played some concoction with necro, chains of mephistofoles and howling mine. Then at the start we were told to switch decks. after the match you would get back your deck and the next round the same would happen. Nobody understood my deck so i beat them all, leading them to convict me of bringing a bad deck. But when i played my deck against theirs i would beat them as they simply didn't get the playmechanism of the deck. Only one found it out but only because he played a demonic tutor and for a very long time looked really hard what was the idea of the deck.

There will surely be people that will understand the idea behind the deck, will they play that deck to its limit right away though. I don't think so, as knowing a deck takes time. And that is what people will make as soon as somebody has some results to back up a deck. The only thing i suggest is to perhaps give a deck some time and thought, and if something bad is in there try to give an argument why you think it is bad or why you would play other cards. Be constructive or ask what the deck is wanting to do. As every team building decks knows it is a process of long times testing cards in the deck, testing synergies and understanding how to play a deck.

[Matt]

The whole pseudo-flamewar in this thread is the result of Marco sharing his views in a rather confronting manner. One might wonder why he does so; I'm guessing it's because his method of deckbuilding has been ridiculed by us, the dominant regime, in that past and continues to be ridiculed today. I'd say we need to agree to disagree and recognise the potential for success on both sides of the argument.

No, I think you're totally wrong here. The "flamewar" (though it really isn't) started when he decided to make a victim out of himself. He posts a list and got a decent response but didn't quite get people flocking in droves to check out his thread, and after this one trial, with a decktype that has been tried many times since Magic began and never ever gotten off the ground (and thus which people are predisposed to reject), the response to which wasn't all that bad, he decides to conclude that people are not open to new ideas? Excuse me?

I'm all for experimenting but I question both his test of open-mindedness and his methodology, and I've said why his conclusions are bunk. I have no problem, and in fact I encourage the posting of new idea, but I also discourage people expecting to gather a following just because they're coming from out of left field.

This post actually prooves that people are not interested in new decks, or when they see a certain card discussed which they deem not worthy of their interest, they simply ignore it.

That quote is just blatantly false, and that's what I'm calling him out on.

[Bram]

No, I think you're totally wrong here.

Why am I not surprised

The "flamewar" (though it really isn't)...

That's why I called it a pseudo-flamewar.

...started when he decided to make a victim out of himself. He posts a list and got a decent response but didn't quite get people flocking in droves to check out his thread, and after this one trial, with a decktype that has been tried many times since Magic began and never ever gotten off the ground (and thus which people are predisposed to reject), the response to which wasn't all that bad, he decides to conclude that people are not open to new ideas? Excuse me?

That I agree with. His test-thread proves nothing. This has been discussed elaborately over IRC and I can do nothing but concur. The example is meaningless. The point that he brings up, however, is potentially not. It's a 'just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not chasing you' thing. Be wary of getting so hung up on Marco's flawed example that you miss the views he wants share.

[BigMac]

I can agree that my example probably is somewhat over the top and i apologise for that.

One flawed assumption does however not mean that the discussion as a whole is not a valid one.

[Matt]

I can concede that.

[LotusHead]

Ideas for a new deck (or in the case of Stasis) on an old deck idea (prison via Stasis) have a hard time selling on TMD.

This is the site for Vintage Evolution and Theory.

However, not all ideas are welcomed or encouraged openly.

For those that know me, I play Salvagers.  That has been a hard sell forever.  Even with actual tourney results (a fairly inexperienced player (me) versus the general meta (Northern California's no-proxy 20-30 person tournies).

I had to endure loads of "flames". Other users (one banned for life) tried to develope Salvagers.  Mods intervened and decreed "none shall speak of Salvagers" at one point, and nothing was said of Salvagers for about 9 months.  Then I won a Mox with it. Then did others.  Then did others still.

Most TMDrs are probably pretty casual players, except when it comes to resuslts.  And that is tourney expeirences.

"Help me build a deck"- take what you can get, but can you deal with the current crop of Shop/Drain/Oath decks at tournaments?  It's up to a deck builder to come up with a game plan, and develope it from there.

This coming is coming from the Salvagers guy who didn't even make the Pyrite Spellbomb connection initially (I used Conjeror's Bauble, Shared Fate and Black Lotus to play all my spells and all my opponent's spells initially.  Turns out, Killing with Pyrite Spellbomb is just more polite/concise/elegant than my game plan).

How are you going to win with "Stasis" or (other new card)?

Can you deal with the current decks out there?

Have you played/Tested against Hate.dec?

TMDrs may have missed something with respect to some deck ideas, but they (now...full user here) we still ask the right questions.

Why Should I pay attention to your deck?

[Methuselahn]

Why Should I pay attention to your deck?

Because the theoretical deck in question made it to the Tournament Results and Reports forum. 

The sad fact is that people have their own agenda.  Serious Magic aficionados don't have time for extra studies beyond what is already on their playtesting dinner plate. They will, however, take notice when a deck gives them proof that it is good in the form of tournament accomplishments. 

The other side of the coin could be that teams could have already seen this technology and don't want to comment on it because they know it's good and want to exploit it. 

[ctthespian]

There is however another side to that point one should not forget. Does everybody trying out an idea really understands the idea behind the deck and thus knows how to play it correctly. I think we will all agree that when a player plays a certain deck for a long time he will know it, understand it and thus recognisably play that deck well. Put together a random netdeck.dec and it is not a sure thing he will do well with it while others swear it is a very good if not dominating deck. My point, take a random deck and you will not perse understand its engine correctly. As we established that, it takes time to fully understand a deck.

A good anecdote about this was a couple of years back (way way way back). We played in a little tournament and i played some concoction with necro, chains of mephistofoles and howling mine. Then at the start we were told to switch decks. after the match you would get back your deck and the next round the same would happen. Nobody understood my deck so i beat them all, leading them to convict me of bringing a bad deck. But when i played my deck against theirs i would beat them as they simply didn't get the playmechanism of the deck. Only one found it out but only because he played a demonic tutor and for a very long time looked really hard what was the idea of the deck.

There will surely be people that will understand the idea behind the deck, will they play that deck to its limit right away though. I don't think so, as knowing a deck takes time. And that is what people will make as soon as somebody has some results to back up a deck. The only thing i suggest is to perhaps give a deck some time and thought, and if something bad is in there try to give an argument why you think it is bad or why you would play other cards. Be constructive or ask what the deck is wanting to do. As every team building decks knows it is a process of long times testing cards in the deck, testing synergies and understanding how to play a deck.

Another example is that is much more recent is Sensei, Sensei.  During it's pilot run at SCG Syracuse the deck did well making a top 8 apperance.  However our team that piloted it kept quite about it online for a while.  I noticed many people that did not understand the deck and how the deck functioned.  I even remember a Control Slaver player that slaved me at a mox tourny 2-4 weeks post Syracuse that did not realize that he could storm with the top to ramp of the freeze on myself.