[Discussion] Introduction of New Decks

[Demonic Attorney]

So, should people just throw caution to the wind and play their new deck ideas in advertised tournaments as a way to "prove" their worth, before posting them on the TMD? 

That was the question that popped into my head as I was posting in the "Slaver USA" thread in the Newbie forum.  A lot of the new deck ideas generate a fair amount of skepticism and debate from the established forum members, especially if the person posting the idea is new or a basic user.  Ultimately this is understandable, given the sheer quantity of deck ideas posted to the forums and the ratio of feasible concepts to Sui Black version 223.78901 ideas.  However, it occurred to me that expecting people with new deck ideas to test them in competitive tournaments or failing that, against volunteers on MWS, might be a good way of avoiding some of these endless arguments that seem to surface in new deck threads.  Rather than spending 2 pages on debating whether Eandori's logic is flawed when he claims Isochoron Scepter generates card advantage, or whether Kowal sends people mean PMs to avoid the perils of real-life fighting, it seems to me that once debate on a given deck begins to circle around the same points without going anywhere, it might be a useful convention to ask the person proposing the idea to defend it by testing it, instead of arguing endlessly with Toad.

Many of the established players and teams already employ this convention, anyway.  A great deal of the newer decks were developed and refined in secret, and introduced to the community only after their value had been proven by their debut tournament performance.  Furthermore, the discussion surrounding these decks was focused on the more salient points, since tournament performance already answered some of the questions people might otherwise have had.   Given that the experienced players do this, is it a bad idea to expect the newer or less-established names to follow suit, at least when the discussion regarding their deck idea degenerates into a back-and-forth surrounding the strength of the logic behind someone's views on Isochron Scepter? 

[rvs]

Given that the experienced players do this, is it a bad idea to expect the newer or less-established names to follow suit, at least when the discussion regarding their deck idea degenerates into a back-and-forth surrounding the strength of the logic behind someone's views on Isochron Scepter? 

Ofcourse backing a deck idea up with solid results is a good way to validate a deck, or at least the deck's core concept. These decks are also the most interesting to discuss, since they are proven to be able to win, so the discussion usually is focused on refining and turning the deck to either a)perform better, or b)beat a specific metagame.
While I personally would never do this, I can see why people would want to throw deck ideas out there without properly testing it first. It is a good measure to find out what the opinions are on a specific card or concept in any given deck, and the best you, as the topic-starter, can get out of it is wether or not it is a good idea, and perhaps pick some other interesting ideas that are based off that concept or card.

Now, the real hard part in to actually get this kind of discussion going is that if you aren't backing up your idea with test/tournament results, you should definately always back it up with theory and feasible potential situations where your idea is good/better than whatever else is possible in it's place. Also, responses are much, MUCH more likely to be equally well written and thought out, since a good example does create good followings.

I think this pretty much answers the question you are posing.

[Toad]

Rather than spending 2 pages on debating whether Eandori's logic is flawed

*says the man who wrote 6 pages about rethorics when debating one of Smmenen's article* :lol:

There are some basic rules when considering deckbuilding. Putting 4 Brainstorm in a blue based Control deck that runs fetchlands and can support them is one of these. That guy in the Newbie Forum didn't came up with a new idea, he basically put Isochron Scepters and Abeyances over Brainstorms. This is not really innovation or a new concept.

As a sidenote, I have actually playtested Drain Slaver with Isochron Scepters back in January 2004, a month after Kim Kluck Top8ed in Duelmen with the first Drain Slaver builds (back then we had Fire/Ice in the maindeck, so far more imprint targets). I think the Germans considered it too. That is about 3 monthes before the deck became popular in the USA. The card has been tested in Drain Slaver. Much like TheAtogLord tryed to modify Kim Kluck's list to add 4 Ophidians, for example. Some tries are good and make a deck evolve in a good direction. Some are bad. Cutting Brainstorms from Drain Slaver is bad.

[Anusien]

We magic players hold something of a double standard.  We tell people to basically step up and prove that their decks are any good.  This has been establish in the Slaver USA thread and before when people just "won't listen to logic", according to us, anyway.  But then we're also more than willing to look at T8 results from established tournaments and call them scrubs, saying that "that deck shouldn't have won".  This goes back to something that BrassMan was talking about on IRC, that Magic players don't do nearly the kind of testing that the Pros do for the Constructed formats.  Now yes, we can probably say, "Brainstorm is an auto-include" but if some deck that we consider bad T8ed a Waterbury, would we really sit up and take notice?  How many people really paid attention to The Riddler after it won a SCG, for example?

[Hi-Val]

I think that established and good players have a capacity to sense a good idea when they see it and dismiss other not-so-good ideas. It's not infallible, but things like cutting Yawgmoth's Will out of Slaver for Abeyance kind of fall into this category. We dismiss a lot of decks without testing them ourselves because to a certain extent, we know that they're not going to work. I think that people also look at decks and ask whether they're good or a flash in the pan, even after a tournament win. Decks can be good in a very narrow meta or just end up lucky, and it's a thinking player that can sort the good from the lucky.

[Anusien]

I think that established and good players have a capacity to sense a good idea when they see it and dismiss other not-so-good ideas. It's not infallible, but things like cutting Yawgmoth's Will out of Slaver for Abeyance kind of fall into this category. We dismiss a lot of decks without testing them ourselves because to a certain extent, we know that they're not going to work. I think that people also look at decks and ask whether they're good or a flash in the pan, even after a tournament win. Decks can be good in a very narrow meta or just end up lucky, and it's a thinking player that can sort the good from the lucky.

That's dangerous because it ends up leading to statements like "You don't run 4 Brainstorm in Control Slaver, therefore you're a bad player."  Obviously in a lot of decks Brainstorm is very very good, and should be an auto-include.  Then again, it's like Kowal said about mono-blue that there are some decks in which you don't want Brainstorm.  The original Meandeck Oath didn't run Yawgmoth's Will, but clearly Will is an auto-include.  The community stood up and took notice because it was from Meandeck (no offense, just as an example).  For example, what if this Slaver USA takes T8 at a tournament?  How likely are we to say he got lucky with a deck choice or say he lucksacked his way to a win, instead of taking him seriuosly?  Maybe Abeyance is a decent card; I can see the value of it in response to a Draw7.  I'm not necessarily sure it's optimal or worth distorting the manabase, but honestly folks, we tend towards elitism.  We should be aware of that.

[Klep]

That's dangerous because it ends up leading to statements like "You don't run 4 Brainstorm in Control Slaver, therefore you're a bad player."

But.... they would be a bad deckbuilder.  Brainstorm belongs in CS.  That's pretty fundamental.

The original Meandeck Oath didn't run Yawgmoth's Will, but clearly Will is an auto-include.  The community stood up and took notice because it was from Meandeck (no offense, just as an example). 

Actually people took notice because it put multiple people in a SCG Top 8 (four people, actually), one of which won the Lotus (go jorlove!).  Meandeck ideas do get greater scrutiny because of where they come from, but they don't get taken seriously unless they actually do well.

For example, what if this Slaver USA takes T8 at a tournament?  How likely are we to say he got lucky with a deck choice or say he lucksacked his way to a win, instead of taking him seriuosly?

Very, because it happens.  Just because Saucy took Meandeck Tendrils to a high finish last Waterbury didn't make it a good deck, and neither does one random win make a deck awesome.  Luck is a factor of this game, and people especially get lucky in Type 1.

Maybe Abeyance is a decent card; I can see the value of it in response to a Draw7.  I'm not necessarily sure it's optimal or worth distorting the manabase, but honestly folks, we tend towards elitism.  We should be aware of that.

No, we don't.  Doug is absolutely right on the mark with his post.  Those of us who are good are well-capable of telling whether or not an idea sucks most of the time.  Play experience combined with past testing results, discussion, and good old-fashioned intuition tells us things like "not running Brainstorm is almost always a terrible idea" and "Abeyance just isn't worth the slots when there are better and more versatile cards you could be using like Brainstorm."  We do not trend towards elitism, we trend towards making people better players and trying to raise the skill level of this format.  With that as our goal, it is our responsibility to stamp out bad ideas, and that is not accomplished by letting them flourish instead.

[Grand Inquisitor]

people especially get lucky in Type 1

Especially if you're on Team Meandeck, evidently...



I think the point is here that since a microscopic portion of our community tests enough to really see which decks/matches/card choices are truly superior, and, in spite of SCG, large regular tournaments don't produce enough data to make an empirical decision, we have to rely on the accumulated knowledge (cough) of our more decorated members.  This success of this strategy has ebbed and flowed depending on who's been posting more, and the level of moderating, but I'd say it's working pretty well right now.

[Dozer]

Now yes, we can probably say, "Brainstorm is an auto-include" but if some deck that we consider bad T8ed a Waterbury, would we really sit up and take notice?

I think we would. I remember the virtual uproar when WW made T8 in Dülmen. Granted, it is not a Waterbury, but as for that, WU Tang Fish won the last one. Surely that was a surprise? And although the deck's success speaks for itself, I'm sure most of us were thinking "wtf?" when we first saw the decklist. Mind you, I'm not saying it is a bad deck -- I think it is a very elegantly executed metagame concept.

However, even decks with questionable chopices in it make T8s. That leads back to the question if there is any one optimal build or not for any given deck in a metagame, and in a wider sense touches the debate about deck archetype consolation that sprung up last year. The cardpool is so wide and powerful that one or two bad choices may actually be useful in some unusual situation, and most decks can still win on the strength of the other cards in the deck anyway. Theoretical example: Not playing Brainstorm in a deck that asks for it looks stupid and is against the convention, but if you play against Chalice 1 every single round and have Impulses instead, you're gold. At one point, a "bad choice" may actually turn around to look like "good metagaming", even it is only accidental.

A deck with one or two bad card choices or appearent building mistakes may make T8 once. Then it is either a statistical artifact or the player got lucky. Only when a deck is able to repeat that success (in a similar metagame, of course) would I start looking at the changes closely. Despite all the testing and big tournaments, Vintage still is a swingy format. "Broken things happen" is still true, and one of those is that suboptimal choices do sometimes not matter. They matter if a match becomes a game of inches, but a lot of Vintage games are still decided in big stride, and there you can often get away with the proverbial non-existent Brainstorm.

It hampers your performance over time, but in the moment you win big, it does not.

Dozer

[BigMac]

I think the rules of this forum very well stipulate how to introduce a new deck (and i didn't follow those rules, shame on me) and i think rightly so. Those rules will avoid any random deck been thrown at us all.

However, what the community thinks of being good decks is something of a preference as i see it. As someone who has tried out many new deckconcepts, failing miserably on most, i can say with some certainty that most players that think of themselves as being good players will be very biased when it comes to new decks. Most will say it is shaky here and flawed there without even testing a concept. It has not made good results, so it is not a good deck so it is not worthy thinking about it, short of burning it down.

This brings me to the next step in my argument. The community is full of: this is good, and this is bad. The result of this being that many players that are not good or innovative in deckbuilding will go netdecking. The result of this being many of the same decks in a tournament. This will result in the normal top 8 endings in a tournament. Normal being, the expected decks will top 8. This off course is partly due to the fact that they are good, and that the players piloting those decks are good players. But another result is that a deck anomaly that makes top 8 is being discarded as being lucky. Then i ask, why is that always due to sheer luck. It can be a good player, it can be a good deck. But due to popular thinking such a deck will be discarded.

Why is such a deck not a good deck. I think that (and this is very black and white) when a 60 people tournament is being played, and of these 60 people 30 are drainslaver, and 30 are sui black, i will bet anyone that not all 8 top 8 places will be filled by drainslaverdecks. It will Pobably do better in the long run but it will be very rare for all top 8 places to be filled by drainslaver in this example. My point with this is, it more often means a good player piloting a new innovative deck making top 8 actually will have played, either very good or has a very good deck as it is far more difficult to make top 8 with a single deck than with multiple decks of the same sort.

So perhaps the community needs to look more closely at anomaly decks in top 8, as it either means a good player was behind it, it was a good deck, or both. When you have a big team and you all play the same, chances of 1 of you getting through to top 8 with whatever reasonable deck are good.

Next to that, what is the rule that only top 8 decks are good decks. They win the tournament, sure, but when you play a 200 people tournament, why aren't the top 32 decks looked at, and perhaps the result of what being good decks might change. This off course i can never prove, but reading all kinds of reports and reading about decks just mussing top 8 actually gives me the idea that some things might actually be different.

Lastly one thing, a deck choice as well as sideboard choices very much depend on metagamechoices. In the end luck will play a part as well as the deck as the metagame. As every deck has a nemesis and thus can loose against any certain deck, good metagaming probably is even more important than a good deck. Because good metagaming takes guts, but can win you the tournament in the end. And people will look at the deck saying wtf, but it still won.

So what i really try to say, mind the little people as they might have good ideas. Don't dismiss an idea with its not tier one (whatever that may mean) tier two or tier whatever. If an idea does well, it deserves being looked at.

Marco

PS people will always play what they are most comfortable with, so innovation is not for most people anyways. They find a deck and will play such a deck indefinitely as "it plays so well for them". This is ok, but these same people flame other decks for not being good, or other cards for not working. Do not mistake playing a deck well, for being able to see how other decks have to be played until you learned how to play them.

[Mykeatog]

...we have to rely on the accumulated knowledge (cough) of our more decorated members...

Don't think I didn't catch that -- dork.

Innovation is quite honestly the hardest thing to do in all of Vintage. I have said many times "I am just going to play team X's new X deck, because they made a great deck." Naturally, when anyone says they have a new deck, or a new idea, it is often dismissed because the overwhelming majority of 'innovation' leads to a failed experiment. In today's article on magicthegathering.com this quote is used and I loved it... "The worst card in your regionals deck is going to be the one that you added to it."

If you have an idea, and you want to test it -- but like most Vintage player -- don't test enough for your results to worth anything, take it to the next big tournament and play all of the rounds. By the end of the day you'll know if it has potential or not.

Realistically, I didn't have anything to add, just wanted to take a shot a GI.