Where did the Good Players Go?

[Smmenen]

In the last two months it has seemed to me that Type One has somehow reverted to the situation almost exactly a year ago - when the format was filled with bad players/deck builders.  I'm not talking about really bad decks, just obviously suboptimal decks.  But I'm not sure that is even as big a problem as the fact that some of the best decks need really good players to make them shine.  

What happened?  Is it because people like Bode haven't been playing the format in the Dulmen recently?  

It seems to me that there has been a noticable decline in quality in decklists construction and play.  I am seeing suboptimal lists populate top 8 lists, and a very confused metagame.  Look at the top 8 of Dulmen and Eindhoven - we see lots of Aggro, is this supposed to exist in type one?  TnT?  I thought that was dead.  I hear reports about people making huge play mistakes at tournaments.

However, I also remember the Gencon results and hearing how horribly people played - all the way up through the top 8.  Is Type One getting worse?  Or is it just now that I am realizing it?  That instead of improving over the last year, just a few elements of the type one crowd have been improving - and this was masked by the ease by which GAT played.  The result is that the Skill Gap is larger than it has ever been.  This is a serious problem.  Thoughts?

Stephen Menendian\n\n

[Triple_S]

As for play mistakes at GenCon (of which I was guilty by not playing another naught under the mask before swinging, thereby walking into a Rack and Ruin which I was fortunate enough to FoW) I blame that mostly on playing 11-13 hrs of magic at a high level.  By the time the finals rolled around my eyes were burning from exhaustion.

For the quality of decklists etc dying off, I can only speak for myself in saying that the current metagame has no interest for me.  I really hate combo and prison.  Those the best decks currently.  I'd rather focus my efforts on other more enjoyable formats (I'm looking into 1.5, the 1.x PTQ season).

[Smmenen]

Shane did you look at Dulmen Top 8?  YOu would love it - it was won by Venguer Masque.  There was a TnT in the top 8 and Madness in the top 4.  How can you honestly say the format is all combo and prison?!!?!?! when there are results like this.  Look at Eindhoven too.  

My gripe isn't just with bad players playing suboptimal decks either - there seems to be a serious lack of metagame understanding.  What would motivate someone to take TnT to a tournament?  I just don't understand that.  There is a stunning lack of consensus about the metagame at the moment.

Steve\n\n

[leviat]

Perhaps since Type 1 has become more popular we have a large influx of new players. As more and more new players join the average skill level of the Magic players goes down until all these people learn.

This isn't a bad thing though. It just means that Type-1 is growing and you have to give it more time. Although perhaps I speak from a tainted metagame. Everytime a new player shows up in Binghamton they get creamed so bad we can't get them to show up again.  We've even been thinking of dividing up our weekly Type-1 into a Noob tournament and an experienced tournament.

BTW, be careful that your not judging a deck bad just because MeanDeck/Paragons didn't come up with it.

[Bastian]

A single top 8 shouldn't serve up as an example to all others. Not everyone has access to the cards needed to play optimal decks, and besides that people have a life beyond Magic as well. Perhaps most of the good players are busy with something else:P

Quote For the quality of decklists etc dying off, I can only speak for myself in saying that the current metagame has no interest for me.  I really hate combo and prison.  Those the best decks currently.  I'd rather focus my efforts on other more enjoyable formats (I'm looking into 1.5, the 1.x PTQ season).

I'm on the same boat as you Shane. I'm already working on some stuff for type 1.5. As for extended... let's wait to see what the post-bans format holds for us.\n\n

[SummenSaugen]

Any deck properly metagamed can compete.

Players play to have fun above all else.  We're playing a game.

Thus, whatever deck is the most fun to play, that person will play it, learn about it, and tweak it to be the best they can make it.

It's not a decline.  It's a healthy metagame.

[Smmenen]

Bastian:
You seem to think that magic and other activities are mutually exclusve.  One can do very well academically and still play competitive magic and people do with other sports.  

One doesn't have to have a life to realize that aggro is probably not the best choice for t1.  And yet Workshop Aggro put up more slots in the Eindhoven and Dulmen top 4 than most other decks.

Steve\n\n

[Smmenen]

Quote (SummenSaugen @ Dec. 01 2003,08:08)Any deck properly metagamed can compete.

Yes, but that is bad.  Why would I play Sligh tweaked to beat the metagame when I could play Tog, Dragon, Long tweaked to beat the metagame?  

Stephen Menendian

[mrieff]

With regard to playing skills, we have a lot to learn from the good PTQ players. Sad, but true.\n\n

[Grand Inquisitor]

This is a ventured guess:

1) Relative to other formats Vintage players have the lowest skill-base.

*Reasons for this:

-Many Vintage players are more casual (fun > winning).  This means they don't invest time in testing, and often have pet cards/decks.  This is not a flaw, simply a preference.

-Many Vintage players are new (look at the explosion TMD created, these are people unfamiliar with the format, if not magic overall).  Anyone who has been in the bottom forum knows what I'm talking about.  This is not a detriment; this is a great, and unexpected boon for our format.

-Vintage isn't just an old format, it has old players.  Even talented members of TMD often juggle magic as more of a hobby with jobs, grad school, family, etc.  This causes them to not be as 'current' as people in other formats (who are usually younger).  Working with imperfect information always leads to metagame anomalies and competitive gaps.

2) Say what you want about the portion of 'playable' cards in the format, we still have a card pool that is enormous compared with other formats.  This leads to more complex metagames, decks, and play decisions.  For example, Team Hadley went down to Miflord, CT expecting lots of scrub aggro.  We were half right, as we struggled against round after round of anti-control suicide (50% of the field).

3) Given the numerous permutations of possible competitive builds, it is impossible to exhaustively test each combination.  This often causes T1 players to make deck construction choices based on theory instead of semi-futile testing.  I'm not saying testing isn't a useful tool at all, simply that if you were to do it rigorously in T1, you'd never catch up to the current card pool.  Acting on theory often requires that you have experience, which I mentioned before, may not be an asset every player has.

[Bastian]

Stephen, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were complaining about the absence of good players from tourneys. (Roland B. for example).\n\n

[Drogo]

Quote (Smmenen @ Dec. 01 2003,10:59)My gripe isn't just with bad players playing suboptimal decks either - there seems to be a serious lack of metagame understanding.  What would motivate someone to take TnT to a tournament?  I just don't understand that.  There is a stunning lack of consensus about the metagame at the moment.

Steve

I think you are a little out of touch with real life Type 1 compared to theoretical, which you are immersed in more than most because you write a lot of (excellent) articles.  Or more accurately, you are somewhat removed from what constitutes real type 1 for most people.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you:

a) will play whatever you think the best deck is most of the time, regardless of personal preference

b) have a virtually unlimited card pool so you can build any deck.

There are LOTS of people who will play a deck they know isn't the best metagame choice because they just love the deck.  Alternatively they had limited resources so they invested in one deck and are "stuck" with it even if they know it isn't a strong deck anymore.    

Tony

[Triple_S]

I'll be the first to admit that I have all but stopped looking at most serious discussions of t1 theory and metagame aspects after I quit the Paragons list again.  It seemed to me the best decks in the current meta are Long, Dragon, Workshop Prison, and Gay/r.  None of those really appeal to me.  I'm glad to see V Masque made another impressive finish, I guess I have to check out those results...

[Smmenen]

@Drogo: But that's one thing I'm complaining about.  That shouldn't happen.  But even if it does - at least the top table should represent something else.  

If this phenomena is the case, what is the solution?



Steve\n\n

[David Hernandez]

Steve,

I think that there are times that T1 players want to use other cards from their collection.  That may seem like an obvious point, but i think it's happening more and more.

For example, I typically play Stax, but I want to use other cards from my collection.  That's why i designed my Meddling Scepter deck.  Is Meddling Scepter sub-optimal?  well, YES, it is compared to Stax/Tog/Long etc.  But it's fun to play and I'm using cards that I've never played with before (or haven't used in ages).  

Maybe what we're seeing are players looking for a lucky shot with a less-optimal deck, hoping to surprise the field while having some fun.  Perhaps it's coincidental timing that a majority of players at a given tournament had the same idea.

The biggest problem i see with this reasoning (if it's true) is that players are not expecting to win with their deck choice.  This doesn't make sense to me because when I play, I want to win.  

So, I think that players are taking these decks to the tournaments and fully expecting to win with them.  Even with a 'sub-optimal' deck, it's possible that an experienced player with an intimate knowledge of that deck, combined with a positive attitude and excellent sideboarding, could turn the tide.  When TnT (or whatever) starts finishing high in the rankings, others will say "I KNEW IT COULD STILL WIN!", and then they run off and build TnT and take it to the next event.

dave

[Drogo]

Steve, I'm not quite sure what you mean by it shouldn't happen.  It happens in all formats, why not in Type 1?  I guess it is more visible in Type 1 (such as in Top 8's as you noted) because Type 1 tournaments are smaller than most Type 2 or Extended tournaments.  There are lots of stubborn people playing MBC in Type 2 or traditional sligh in extended but the fields are large enough there that they don't show up in the Top 8 because the "good" decks wash them out.  

Tony

[bebe]

Wow. I don't know where to begin. We have very good deckbuilders and experienced palyers in our meta. That we choose to play decks other than Dragon or Long does not make us scrubs. I played Dragon for two straight tournaments, got bored and moved on. I play decks that appeal to my rogue nature.

Suboptimal lists are everywhere, yes. I think this is partially due to new players who lack some of the cards and others who put a deck together the night before the tournament. Most of us have our 'A' deck so to speak and a few more rogue decks. Dicemanx can play Hulk, Dragon, or control but often will bring a Eureka deck or some other amusing and competitive creation - just as an example.

I do have a very good Trix and Dragon deck but usually opt to play rogue - confirming my terrible Vintage rankings ( also a number of our tournaments are unsanctioned).

I mentioned in another thread that Aggro was still around despite combo. You can pack hate for Dragon and other combo decks in an aggro build if you choose to. Writing aggro off is premature.

As for the skill gap, that always existed. Why is this a new revelation for you. Richard wins (shock wave) here consistently because he is skilled and plays well built decks. We have a pool of very good players but many of us choose to play decks that are not tier one because we need variety.

[Toast]

stop theorizing and start realizing...people will play whatever they want to play, luck both in pairings and what cards end up being where in the deck is a big factor as well. Just because certain decks shouldn't make T8 theoretically doesn't mean that they won't.

[-CF-]

I agree with the "use other cards from their collection" comment - I do it myself sometimes. Also, while the /theoretical/ metagames in Type1 fluctuate the -actual- metagames 'lag', so to speak. If Some Event suddenly pushes a new deck into tier 1 it will take time before people are able to build these decks, because they will have to acquire them - mostly through trading. Which leads me to another argument, which is perhaps the most important one today:

Right now, burning desire is very powerful, but the B/R update today will possibly make plenty of cards in that deck illegal - so why bother acquiring them at all? I think the uncertainty about coming restrictions has put a damper on experimentation as far as _aquiring the cards_ go.

--
Chris\n\n

[Smmenen]

@ Toast: This is a Serious problem.  If you don't think so I think we need to reevaluate how we are going to advance type one.

The title of this thread is really a red herring.  The problem isn't specific players not playing - its the players who are playing.  People are lazy.  

The key is 1) testing and 2) metagame understanding.  And the two are inter-related.  If people don't test, they won't get better at a deck and their testing will be skewing their metagame understanding.  This doesn't require quitting your day job - it only requires a few hours of good testing a week.  That's really what I think it boils down to.  Hopefully, my future article efforts will help to bridge some of this gap.

Steve\n\n

[ctthespian]

What would motivate someone to take TNT to a tournament?

I went to Waterbury's last tourny and went 4-2 playing a R/G TNT that I'd tuned for the metagame.  I lost two games to control that day that I should have won if I tuned my mana base before the tournament.   I knew my chances vs Control matchups should have been in my favor (a healthy 70% in my favor at least), Long was a 50/50 in my opinion and Dragon was all about the sideboard and getting my Hate against it.  I new the field would likely be full of Control and Dragon near the top and I went to take my chances.  I went to try and prove my changes to the deck knowing that I'd only get flames and shout's of TNT is dead otherwise in this community.

That rant past.  Some reasons I think that we are seeing more play errors and fewer decks of quality are the following:

1. The already mentioned infulx of new players to T1 and the popularity of Proxy decks making every green player think they can compete with power.

2. The internet community and netdecking.  In theory it's a great idea that so many heads can create incredible designs.  However the community can be eliteist at times and flame or stomp new ideas before they can ever be mulled over and tuned.  Netdecking has left many players scanning the pages on the net looking for the next hot deck instead of pouring through their cards coming up with ideas of their own.

3.  As far as more play errors I think that there have always been as many.  How many games can you walk away from watching and say to yourself, "Why did he do that?"  The reason I think they are becoming more noticeable and dramatic however, is the speed of the format and how costly a mistake can be.  Just the decision to Paris or not can be a costly mistake in T1.

-Keith

[FyreStar]

Why would good players play when you don't need to be good to win tournaments anymore?

[SummenSaugen]

The definition of a healthy metagame is success in diversity, no?

I'm afraid I just don't see how it's a problem that any deck can win, if the builder/player is adept enough.

[MoreFling]

Fun, for a lot of people, and especially in T1, is just as important as winning. It's also true that in general, T1 players test less.

Roland said on IRC in October IIRC, that he thought T2 was more fun than T1 is right now.

I don't see how this is actually a problem btw. People should play what they want to play, why are you even making a (big) deal out of it?

[Toast]

@steve: why does this spell doom for the format? If everybody did what you were suggesting then would MTG really be a game any longer? What is wrong with diversity....force of will is often refered to as the glue that holds the format together...I think this is true but it is not the only glue. If people are totally unprepared for a certain deck then that deck can cause an upset. Therefore the top decks need at least some way of dealing with that deck otherwise they would not be the top deck for much longer. This keeps the top decks in check, preventing them from becoming overly degenerate. (e.g. the only reason why stompy ever won is because some keeper decks were so tuned to beat other keeper that they forgot to prepare for stompy)

[Smmenen]

There are some severe problems with type one like it is now.
If we don't have a tight, coherent metagame, based upon the top tables representing the best decks, then we have serious problems becuase we can't isolate and identify what needs to be restricted, other people can't use that data to build decks for their tournaments, and we lose general coherency and bicker about what the good decks are - and we also lose metagaming opportunites.  This is a serious problem for all these reasons and more.

Steve

[Triple_S]

Generally speaking I think the metagame tends to crystalize in structure around big events.  For t2 this happens around States, Regionals, Nationals, Worlds.  For 1.x this happens at the PT and the PTQs that follow.  The same for block constructed.  T1 has its isolated events but only one large scale public event:  The championshp at GenCon.  The established tier structure has broken down somewhat since it would appear so that people have reverted to playing what they think is fun or most fits their playstyle as opposed to what generally flat out wins.

[SummenSaugen]

If any deck can make top eight, restrictions are unnecessary.  As I stated on page one, this is what's called a healthy environment.

If there are no top decks to represent, then the format has hit the golden age.

The bickering I agree is a huge problem, but with a greater diversity of strategies, the players eager to share information and learn that of others will only improve.  The rest, well, are easy to ignore I guess.

[bebe]

I have to say that I agree with SummenSaugen despite our history.

It boils down to agendas, Steve. You have your vision of the ideal Type 1 environment and others have a different view. You want to know how to meta game precisely in a strictly defined environment of five or six Tier 1 decks. I go to a Type 1 tournament and someone playing Sneak Attack beats me on turn two, two games straight and I say " cool deck. gg. "

Type 1 was always the refuge for rogue, casual players because there are a number of experienced and older players who just want an afternoon of fun. I love Toronto because I have no idea what to expect. I don't want a coherent meta and I will build sideboards with cards that are useful against a number of decks. There will be graveyard hate, control hate and combo hate in my side.

I don't need to isolate what needs to be restricted if there is no deck dominating the scene. Certain cards are obvious canditates anyway - tutors, mana acceleraters, etc.

I do understand your point though. How do we determine what the best choice is for certain decks when we have no way of predicting what will be played. There will continue be differences in approach among players. There will be no consensus here. Although you feel this detrimental to the format others will argue it is exactly what they want.

[David Hernandez]

Quote Smmenen:

Quote If we don't have a tight, coherent metagame, based upon the top tables representing the best decks, then we have serious problems becuase we can't isolate and identify what needs to be restricted

This is an excellent point.  

Still, the fact that different decks are finishing in the top 8 may be a sign that the meta is very healthy.  Perhaps nothing needs to be restricted.

Card Restrictions based on first-turn kills (like Long with LED) may be a better way to determine what has to be restricted.  

I understand that looking at the top finishers in tournaments is an excellent way to identify which deck-engines or pieces are broken, but players are unpredictible in their deck preferences, and in a way help to self-govern the environment.  I think this is what we are seeing in the results you have pointed out.

The current meta is different from the Necro season, when all decks were Necro or Anti-Necro. Or the time when you had to play Academy or Anti-Academy.  In those cases, entire tournaments consisted of 1 or 2 decks, and the top-8 reflected it.

--Dave.