[Article] Fishing For The Core Truths In Vintage

[HengeWolf]

Quote (Smmenen @ Oct. 24 2003,15:56)Matt is concerned about netdecking - the Mana Drain effect he calls it.  He talks about how people can take a deck and do well with it and that squeezes out diversity.  I have already written at length about how that is a good thing to have netdecking - a uniform metagame being a good thing for being predictable and understandeable.  

Stephen Menendian

This has always been my main point of contention with the tournament mindset. I don't want to know what's coming. The minute the "metagame" becomes predictable and understandable, I fall asleep and move onto something else.

Sure, once you know everything you'll ever face, you can "metagame" yourself into a superior position. Of course, you have to accept the format for what it is, no more no less, to arrive at that point.

Not everyone wants to arrive at that point. What's a fun and compelling sport to some, is to others  a tedium, sucking the variety out of the game.

Then again, I'd probably argue it was more *fun* to beat each other with sticks than drop smartbombs. Military people probably just shit themselves from laughing so hard.

If I'm the only person in magic who feels this way, then sue me for being narcissistic.

If I'm not the only one, well then, there, it's been said. Some of us don't like "uniform metagames" because they suck the aesthetic mystery right out of the game.

I'd gladly go back to playing bad four color decks that attempt to have an aswer for every possible contingency in the game, because you just don't know what you're going to face. That might not be the most efficient way to play, but IMO it was a BETTER way to play. I'd elaborate, but I'm pressed for time.

Then again, I never get mad when I meet a rogue deck and lose to it. I've noticed a lot of hardcore players have a problem with that.

End Personal Attacks NOW! *said as a booster cheer, not even remotely belligerent.

[Smmenen]

I have made a pretty strong argument for the case of increasing the competition of the metagame,  having integrated the argument for netdecking, uniform metagames, and presented the benefits as well as the downsides of doing so extensively in my article, so it would belabor my point to restate them.  I think the strongest point in that section of my article was how I demonstrated that innovation is more likely to come from those netdecked metagames rather than from what you prefer becuase the incentives are more properly structured bettered in the new school metagame.  

So that is the first point - that new decks are more likely to emerge in my vision of type one.  And the second point, which I have not discussed in my article, is why do you assume that a predictable or understandable metagame is static?  You state that it will "suck variety out" - when I think precisely the opposite happens - if there is an understandable metagame - then there is more incentive to change things up every week.  If people are expecting your deck, then you make adjustments, tweak, or find new decks.  Change creates more changes - that is the very nature of a metagame dynamic.  Static metagames that are pretty random and pretty sucky have absolutely no incentive to change except on some whim of a person who wants to try another deck.  Market economics has demonstrated that incentives work - structure the incentives properly, and you can get whatever you want to happen to occur.  

So I think your wrong on to say that variety is sucked out of understandable, predictable metagames - you read the language as precise.  A metagame that is understandable or uniform does not mean there are only four decks on the globe.  It means that there are trends that everyone understands.  What happens next, nobody knows - that is the art of metagaming.  
Steve

[Rico Suave]

Quote (Smmenen @ Oct. 24 2003,14:56)First: In my SCG articles, I _never_ actually come out and say this deck is the best deck.  In fact, I rarely say that the deck is even good!  The closest I came to that was saying that Stax might be a good metagame choice for Gencon if there is not going to be alot of hate.  

I disagree.  The closest you came to that was your win percentages in your Long article, where even the Ferrett said he usually doesn't publish those kinds of articles.

Quote After over a year of advacating the unrestriction of berserk, in a very small snippet in my GAT article, I did write that if it was unrestricted we'd play 4.  I even said in my letter that GAT was the only reason not  to unrestrict it.  But that wasn't hysteria - as it was all said BEFORE Berserk was actually unrestricted.  

But you went apeshit after they announced Berserk was unrestricted.  I specifically remember you eating your words when going from 4 Berserk to 1 main and 1 SB.

Quote While Matt wants Workshop restricted, which i disagree with, he also doesn't think that LED is good enough for restriction.  What do you think of that?

Well, good enough after Mirrodin or before it?  It makes a bit of difference in context.

I agree with everything else you said.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think you always overhype everything.  For the most part, I completely agree with you.  I just have a few select problems, like the GAT statement, which make it hard for me to stay quiet when the subject comes up.  I think it's very easy for us to overlook slight exaggerations and whatnot, and that's what I saw in the situation.

[Smmenen]

Quote (Rico Suave @ Oct. 26 2003,16:15)

Quote (Smmenen @ Oct. 24 2003,14:56)First: In my SCG articles, I _never_ actually come out and say this deck is the best deck.  In fact, I rarely say that the deck is even good!  The closest I came to that was saying that Stax might be a good metagame choice for Gencon if there is not going to be alot of hate.  

I disagree.  The closest you came to that was your win percentages in your Long article, where even the Ferrett said he usually doesn't publish those kinds of articles.

Win percentage?  Did you notice how I carefully left OUT win percentages.  If someone wanted to figure out match results, they'd have to count up the game - WHICH I DID NOT EVEN SUMMARIZE.  Or did you not even count and realize that I left almost all the matches at EXACTLY 50% in the article.  So you are TOTALLY wrong!

Quote

Quote After over a year of advacating the unrestriction of berserk, in a very small snippet in my GAT article, I did write that if it was unrestricted we'd play 4.  I even said in my letter that GAT was the only reason not  to unrestrict it.  But that wasn't hysteria - as it was all said BEFORE Berserk was actually unrestricted.  

But you went apeshit after they announced Berserk was unrestricted.  I specifically remember you eating your words when going from 4 Berserk to 1 main and 1 SB.

If by apeshit you mean posting a list with 4 berserks, then yes that was apeshit.  If by saying OMG WTF OMG WTF this is the best deck EVAR - then that wasnt' me.  It was DARREN, not me, who called everyone a moron - further, I am probably the person most responsible for Berserk getting unrestricted, so I had the most to lose by sensationalizating it.

Quote

Quote While Matt wants Workshop restricted, which i disagree with, he also doesn't think that LED is good enough for restriction.  What do you think of that?

Well, good enough after Mirrodin or before it?  It makes a bit of difference in context.

Before.  He doesn't think Long is that good pre-mirrodin.


Steve

[Rico Suave]

Quote (Smmenen @ Oct. 27 2003,10:14)Win percentage?  Did you notice how I carefully left OUT win percentages.  If someone wanted to figure out match results, they'd have to count up the game - WHICH I DID NOT EVEN SUMMARIZE.  Or did you not even count and realize that I left almost all the matches at EXACTLY 50% in the article.  So you are TOTALLY wrong!

I was looking back at it and didn't find anything, but I do specifically remember a nice introduction by the Ferrett to one of your articles based on inflated numbers.  

Quote If by apeshit you mean posting a list with 4 berserks, then yes that was apeshit.  If by saying OMG WTF OMG WTF this is the best deck EVAR - then that wasnt' me.  It was DARREN, not me, who called everyone a moron - further, I am probably the person most responsible for Berserk getting unrestricted, so I had the most to lose by sensationalizating it.

No, by apeshit I mean:

"OMIGOD.

I've ruined the format.

I'm so very sorry.  

STeve"

Sound familiar?  You even said OMIGOD.

Quote Before.  He doesn't think Long is that good pre-mirrodin.

Well then I disagree, but that doesn't mean the point in his article doesn't apply to you.

[Smmenen]

Quote (Rico Suave @ Oct. 27 2003,09:10)

Quote (Smmenen @ Oct. 27 2003,10:14)Win percentage?  Did you notice how I carefully left OUT win percentages.  If someone wanted to figure out match results, they'd have to count up the game - WHICH I DID NOT EVEN SUMMARIZE.  Or did you not even count and realize that I left almost all the matches at EXACTLY 50% in the article.  So you are TOTALLY wrong!

I was looking back at it and didn't find anything, but I do specifically remember a nice introduction by the Ferrett to one of your articles based on inflated numbers.  

Quote If by apeshit you mean posting a list with 4 berserks, then yes that was apeshit.  If by saying OMG WTF OMG WTF this is the best deck EVAR - then that wasnt' me.  It was DARREN, not me, who called everyone a moron - further, I am probably the person most responsible for Berserk getting unrestricted, so I had the most to lose by sensationalizating it.

No, by apeshit I mean:

"OMIGOD.

I've ruined the format.

I'm so very sorry.  

STeve"

Sound familiar?  You even said OMIGOD.

Quote Before.  He doesn't think Long is that good pre-mirrodin.

Well then I disagree, but that doesn't mean the point in his article doesn't apply to you.

Your thinking of Koen's article on the deck.  The ferrett said: I don't normally post articles with win percentages that aren't backed up, etc - as Koen's article used alot of win percentages.

Matt's primary points of his article do not apply to me at all.  First becuase he told me, and second becuase he is talking about poeple who move metagames but don't test as he said.  I have recorded play-by-play 98 mirrodin type one games since September 13 (and probably played double that amount).  I honestly didn't think the Berserk would be unrestricted so it was hard to test that.  But you can be sure I tested Chalice alot before my article.

Matt doesn't think that Long is that powerful.  In this testing he had long losing 11 out of 13 games against Stupid Red Burn.

Stephen Menendian

[HengeWolf]

Quote (Smmenen @ Oct. 24 2003,17:27)So I think you're wrong to say that variety is sucked out of understandable, predictable metagames - you read the language as precise.  A metagame that is understandable or uniform does not mean there are only four decks on the globe.  It means that there are trends that everyone understands.  What happens next, nobody knows - that is the art of metagaming.

Okay, I'm willing to concede that point. Whether or not it actually comes to pass, or we do in fact end up with four decks for the whole world, will (I guess) remain to be seen.
I may not be playing much vintage, but I'll definitely be watching.

[Rico Suave]

Quote (Smmenen @ Oct. 27 2003,12:47)Your thinking of Koen's article on the deck.  The ferrett said: I don't normally post articles with win percentages that aren't backed up, etc - as Koen's article used alot of win percentages.

You're right, I was thinking of the wrong article.

Quote Matt's primary points of his article do not apply to me at all.  First becuase he told me, and second becuase he is talking about poeple who move metagames but don't test as he said.  I have recorded play-by-play 98 mirrodin type one games since September 13 (and probably played double that amount).  I honestly didn't think the Berserk would be unrestricted so it was hard to test that.  But you can be sure I tested Chalice alot before my article.

I never said you don't playtest, but there's more to the article than just that:

"Case in point: Berserk. Before being taken off the restricted list, there were cries of despair from every corner of the Type I community - after a month or two of testing, only murmurs."

You were the first person to jump into my mind when I read that line.  And many other parts apply to you as well, although not as bluntly.

In other words, I wouldn't go around saying you were completely innocent, which is what you were saying.

[Grollub]

Ahem, back on the subject, excellent article, I loved the last part about the fishing metagame -- so very true.  GOOD WORK.

Rico and Steve, this seems to me like it should be dealt with over PMs.  Wow, I should be mod.

[Ferrismonk]

Good job Smith!  The only complaint is that it could have been longer.  It was very mellow and yet says a lot.  Keep writing about vintage!  It needs people who keep things in perspective.

-Travis-