TheManaDrain.com
September 23, 2019, 01:55:04 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: Where did the Good Players Go?  (Read 11887 times)
spevack
Guest
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2003, 12:50:39 pm »

The difference is that in Type 1, there's no prizes, PT slots, or even meaningful rating worth competing for.  So there's no incentive to test like a madman, unless the joys of optimizing a deck alone are reward enough?

We're in a two month stretch of Extended GPT's and PTQ's right now as well, which is probably the one PTQ season that has the best chance of pulling away Type 1 players for a while.

Add to that the fact that everyone is waiting to see the B/R list, and I think we've just hit a lull.  It will bounce back.
Logged
MoreFling
Guest
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2003, 01:04:33 pm »

spevack is totally right, and to add to his points, you must also see that there is no real metagame in T1, since it differs so much from each area. Compare this to T2 for instance, where even at the local tourneys you would see the exact same decks as you would at a GP or PT.
Logged
MuzzonoAmi
Guest
« Reply #32 on: December 01, 2003, 01:11:59 pm »

Quote from: Smmenen+Dec. 01 2003,09:13
Quote (Smmenen @ Dec. 01 2003,09:13)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.
I thionk this is where you're amking your error, Steve. The ideal metagame has no definitive top deck. When the metagame becomes too stratified into tiers is when threats of restrictions should come about, and those threats should be apparent to everyone. I'm not saying that everyone should go play Stompy and Sligh again and that Keeper adn BBS should be the undisputed kings of the hill like they were 2 years ago. What I am saying is that if we have 15+ decks that can top 8 in any tourney if the player is good enough at metagaming and playing his/her deck then that player deserves to win. Having 20 options is pretty good, isn't it? That's metagme health right there.
Logged
Milton
Guest
« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2003, 01:12:07 pm »

I think the best players are playing the decks that they consider to be the best for their metagame.  That's all.  They may look sub-optimal on paper, but they may be very well tuned to their meta.

Also, the possibility exists that you have created a metagame in your mind that defines the format.  You may have created a paradigm for yourself and when you see deck lists that are out of the established paradigm you wonder, scratch your head and then state "what the fuck is going on?  why is no one playing good decks?"  

This is the kind of thinking that had so many people ignoring potentially good decks, like Shock Wave and his Dragon deck prior to GenCon.  Everyone thought that was shit, until he cleaned house.

Maybe the pendlum has swung the opposite way again.  Maybe 4 Waste, 1 Strip aggro with Deeds and Duresses and some creatures is a house.  Maybe Fish is as good as Long (which is waaaaay over-rated, by the way).  Maybe Hulk has a tough time with Landstill.  Maybe it's time to re-establish a new paradigm.

I believe that we are a lot closer to rock-paper-sciscors than some seem to think and that the metagame is still wide open.  Success depends on pairings and skill level more so now than ever.\n\n

Logged
Arex
Guest
« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2003, 01:53:31 pm »

Well, I also believe that the format should not be either play the "best" deck or play to beat it. See, because of this situation, I stopped playing magic. For instance, in T2, a few years ago..it was either play fires or beat fires, and I hate it. Why? Why I had to play fires to WIN?? WHY? Same now, I have always hated Keeper because everyone played it. It might be the best deck ever made (except for ICT of course  ). I loved to make dif decks and played them all. For instance, there was a store that disappeared like 2 years ago, but was holding T1 tournaments. First time I played, I played BBS and won (because I played MD B2B). Next week, half the players played a deck to deal with B2B, but oh surprise, I played WW and won again, several cards in their decks dead, because hate builds, played the finals vs. Keeper and yes, I won. Next week I tried POX, and I ended up losing to Sligh. Bad Match. But see, all the times players were trying new things and some the same things.

The point is that in all formats there will always be "good" decks, "bad" decks, random decks and the "best" decks, etc. But why always play the "best" deck??? Because it is fun to play? Because it IS the "best" deck??? Because I want to win no matter what and therefore I need the "best" deck?? There are so many factors that are out of our control in a game like this, that we will never ever be able to for sure which is the ULTIMATE Deck, and if it comes to that, then whatís the point on the game then? Why have over 6500 card if I know I'll only play these 60? Kinda lame, donít you think?

Now, again, in all formats you will have good, bad, random or even the best players, and this is ok. The more players you have, the best the game will be. New players will bring a start to a circle that will evolve from a inexperienced format to a mature to over the hill one and back around.

Whatís wrong on having 1 R/G deck beat all the "best" decks? It can always happen. There are factors like chance, human error (yes, even the best players make mistakes), time constraints, etc. I see it the other way around, the more decks, the more variable the game, the more fun.

Now, taking the T1 env to decide what needs to be banned or restrict, I think this is one factor that is really out of our hands. If someone found a way to abuse some cards, and he exploits it, and everyone thinks, "ah, this is it, this is the deck", we come to the same cycle, everyone plays the deck or plays against it, maybe not because it is fun, but because it is the "best" at that time, and then, wizards realizes this and boom, Alpha, Beta and Unlimited are rolled out the T1 scene.

Anyway, maybe right now is the best env for T1. It will come around, it always does.

Arex

Sorry to butt in, but those are my two Mexican cents (worth = $0.002)
Logged
Smmenen
Guest
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2003, 01:57:51 pm »

It's too bad that LED is restricted so I can't prove you all wrong who doubt Long.  It's not only by far the best deck, but it is Objectively so irrespective of metagames (barring extreme circumstances).  It rewarded people who had alot of experience with it and was often counterintuitive if you tried to play it like an academy deck.

Steve\n\n

Logged
urza's child
Guest
« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2003, 02:08:49 pm »

Quote from: Smmenen+Dec. 01 2003,13:57
Quote (Smmenen @ Dec. 01 2003,13:57)It's too bad that LED is restricted so I can't prove you all wrong who doubt Long.  It's not only by far the best deck, but it is Objectively so irrespective of metagames (barring extreme circumstances).  It rewarded people who had alot of experience with it and was often counterintuitive if you tried to play it like an academy deck.

Steve
i fully agree with everything summon sausage said, but ^^^ is just being conceded steve. we all know youre an amazing player, but you dont need to brag about it and a deck you designed. Because the fact of the matter is, there is no more burning wish, there is no more LED. Go to TPS, or let long die
Logged
Smmenen
Guest
« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2003, 02:10:53 pm »

The fact that LED and Wish were restricted stings.  It's the right decision, but it stings becuase far too many people don't understand why it was the right decision - which means to me that they don't deserve the benefit of the DCI trying to help them.  Harsh?  Yes, but if they don't know why should it matter?  If only two people in type one abuse Long, is that reason to restrict?  

Steve
Logged
wuaffiliate
Guest
« Reply #38 on: December 01, 2003, 02:11:23 pm »

once t1 gets huge support like t2/ext do, then we can see everyone playing tier1/metagame decks. thats the reason most done feel the need to play top decks all the time, because noone else is.
Logged
Kerzkid11
Guest
« Reply #39 on: December 01, 2003, 02:13:25 pm »

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

Amen. I think a few people are guilty of that.
Logged
Nevyn
Guest
« Reply #40 on: December 01, 2003, 02:31:03 pm »

I don't think this is a decline, I think it's a plateau we've been on for a while. There may have been a brief resurgence leading up to Gencon, but the simple fact is that Type one is harder to play than other formats because more decisions are required and things happen faster, while the people who play type one also tend to test and metagame far less than other constructed formats. This leads to sloppier play and more varied decks. This is NOT new.

Why would someone take TNT to a type 1 tourney. Because they darn well built it, potentially took months getting the cards for it, enjoy it and darn well feel like playing it. Type 1 has always seen a lot of that sentiment. Budgets are not unlimited and people get attached to decks (people quit when they couldn't play necro rather than get a new deck), so it's not at all surprising that someone would just try to adapt their existing deck to win.

Finally, while information sharing about type one is at a high at the moment, it's still nowhere near the level of other formats.  In extended over the next 8 weeks, people will get to see top decklist from 10+ tourneys with over 100 decent players EVERY week. You have to look hard to get data that good for type 1 over SIX months (which doesn't help as things change drastically over that span)
Logged
Thug
Guest
« Reply #41 on: December 01, 2003, 02:32:26 pm »

Quote
Quote 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.

You could also just call these deck metagame decks, fact is that these aggro decks can easier deal with the current combo-overload than pure control decks can. For one, Pyrostatic Pillar doesn't care about Swarm, and laughs at Meltdown.

Exactly this is what keeps type one so interesting, most of the decks can be adjusted to the current metagame, and before every tournament you once again get to think about all the posibilities you have and the current metagame.

Another thing is that you can't 100% judge people magic-qualities on the deck they play/constructed. There are always factors like the cardpool and personal prefferences.

So what, an R/G beats deck won Eindhoven, well great job! (Had my resistance been a little better, I would have won   ). And the list seems far from optimal and probably is, but that shows just another factor that makes this game interesting: the randomness. All other T8 decks seem solid in my eyes, and so the players. So I think you're a little overreacting about the Eindhoven metagame.

Koen
Logged
spevack
Guest
« Reply #42 on: December 01, 2003, 02:48:23 pm »

I don't understand the fundamental complaint.

In my mind, building a Type 1 deck properly consists of making choices that give you the most well-rounded deck against both the theoretical "unlimited budget/cardpool" type 1 metagame, and then adjusting that build to accomodate for the expected actual metagame at whatever tournament you are going to.

When I play Type 1, I try to be prepared for virtually anything random that I can think of in the first rounds, while making sure that I can deal with the genearlly accepted Top Decks in the later rounds.

What's the problem with having to be prepared for anything?  In fact, isn't that part of the joy of Type 1?

As an interesting aside, you will note that this is the same reason why pros LOVE having 3 round byes at GPs.  They metagame and prepare to deal exclusively with the Generally Accepted Good Decks that they don't want to risk randomly losing to something rogue.

In type 1, to be good, you need to be ready for the expected as well as the random.

This is a GOOD THING, not a problem.
Logged
Smmenen
Guest
« Reply #43 on: December 01, 2003, 02:55:22 pm »

You are not understanding my point.  There is a skill gap that is wider than its been all year.  There is a metagame misunderstanding - people fail to realize how certain matchups come out - or disagree about it, the result is metagame incoherence.

Steve
Logged
spevack
Guest
« Reply #44 on: December 01, 2003, 03:02:01 pm »

Right, and I'm saying that metagame incoherence and large skill gaps between players are fundamental parts of the type 1 metagame, and that therefore there is no problem.

Call it the meta-metagame, or just call it a symptom of more type 1 players than available sets of Power.

But that's a different thread.  Smile

Steve, you'll NEVER get the metagame you want until there is a Type 1 Pro Tour/GP/PTQ season and reprints of the Old Stuff.\n\n

Logged
K-Run
Guest
« Reply #45 on: December 01, 2003, 03:08:06 pm »

So what? It seems to me that you're angry that your rules for card restriction can't realisticly apply to Type 1. Maybe you should realize that Type 1 is way more Magic: The Game than Magic : The Sport.
Logged
MoreFling
Guest
« Reply #46 on: December 01, 2003, 03:08:39 pm »

Quote from: Smmenen+Dec. 01 2003,20:55
Quote (Smmenen @ Dec. 01 2003,20:55)You are not understanding my point.  There is a skill gap that is wider than its been all year.  There is a metagame misunderstanding - people fail to realize how certain matchups come out - or disagree about it, the result is metagame incoherence.

Steve
You mean they disagree with what _you_ think?
Logged
Smmenen
Guest
« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2003, 03:13:47 pm »

Not precisely.  There is disagreement in general.  And evidently R&D agrees becuase they restricted the cards that I beleive were too good - in other words, Lion's Eye Diamond.  

We had more widepread agreement during gencon times and before - but not now.

Steve
Logged
leviat
Guest
« Reply #48 on: December 01, 2003, 03:17:28 pm »

Quote
Quote It's too bad that LED is restricted so I can't prove you all wrong who doubt Long.  It's not only by far the best deck, but it is Objectively so irrespective of metagames (barring extreme circumstances).  It rewarded people who had alot of experience with it and was often counterintuitive if you tried to play it like an academy deck.
It's too bad? Isn't this what you wanted Steve?

Didn't you try to convince everyone that Long ruined Type 1 because it was so potentially broken? The problem of course is that Top8 results haven't proven Long to be a dominating deck. Ten people showed up to Waterbury with Long and not a single one made Top-8 (while three Dragon decks DID).

Now it sounds to me that your position is that people just suck at Type 1 and that's why Long isn't winning. I disagree but fine, it's your opinion.What bothers me is that your now complaining Type 1 is going to be ruined because people aren't good enough to play Long -- which by the way you feel is so powerful it ruins the format. (Truly you have a dizzying intellect.)

When you look at the Top8 of different tournaments and the decks portrayed are not making it clear which cards should be banned and restricted, then you have to realize that this is a Good Thing™ because nothing SHOULD be banned or restricted.

I get bothered when I see the new banned and restricted list because all it did is reduce the number of viable decks in Type-1. Both Madness and The Shining got shot in the foot due to restrictions on cards for a deck that never dominated the field.

Should we all thank you for that Steve?
Logged
Thug
Guest
« Reply #49 on: December 01, 2003, 03:18:18 pm »

Quote
Quote Not precisely.  There is disagreement in general.  And evidently R&D agrees becuase they restricted the cards that I beleive were too good - in other words, Lion's Eye Diamond.  

So what you're basicly saying is that you got everthing straight right now and you cannot understand why other peoples don't

I really don't see much of a problem, but that might just be the local metagame here, which I think is fine.

Koen
Logged
Smmenen
Guest
« Reply #50 on: December 01, 2003, 03:22:29 pm »

yes, my intellect is dizzying.

There is a rationale which explainst the apparent consistency - and explains my view of type one.  As you know, my core critiria for restriction is metagame/dominance distortion.  My two goals have alwys been balance in regard to the metagame by removing metagame/dominance and secondly, to make type one more competitive.  If type one players aren't playing the best decks, then it is not really possible to prove metagame dominance/distortion.  I think Type One is seriously harmed by the lack of respect for long.  At the same time, it would be harmed if Long was not restricted IF it had truly been dominating as I thought it should.

Stephen Menendian
Logged
dicemanX
Guest
« Reply #51 on: December 01, 2003, 03:30:27 pm »

Steve, if everyone

1) Played primarily to win
2) Recognized what the best decks were and played them
3) Played as well as you

then T1 would be the absolute worst and most boring format ever. This is not a knock against you at all. It is just the end result of what you are striving to achieve.

We need skill gaps and "metagame misunderstandings" to keep things fresh and interesting.
Logged
spevack
Guest
« Reply #52 on: December 01, 2003, 03:32:06 pm »

So what you're saying is that they fixed the theoretical metagame before the real world metagame evolved to the point at which is was proven that Long is as degenerate as you say.

So okay, fine.  Is the issue that you can only say "I told you so" halfway, instead of totally?

Steve, you're a Pro Tour mindset trapped in a Type 1 player.  You have to slightly modify your outlook toward the way Type 1 works in the real world, or you need to convince WotC to turn Type 1 into a format that gets the same backing as Extended/Type 2.

Or go win an Extended PTQ this Saturday, and escape to Pro Tour Heaven ™.

That's just my opinion.\n\n

Logged
David Hernandez
Guest
« Reply #53 on: December 01, 2003, 03:32:54 pm »

Type 1 is good right now.  Except for decks that go off on turn one, it seems balanced.  The LED restriction hit the right spot i think, because it allowed Long to go off easier.  Even with LED restricted, i think Long could have survived, except for...

The Burning Wish restriction, which seemed aimed solely at Long, though it also affects The Shining.

I think restrictions should concentrate on cards that allow turn 1 wins, not "decks that finish in the T8", although it's entirely possible that the 2 will go hand-in-hand.

dave
Logged
Thug
Guest
« Reply #54 on: December 01, 2003, 03:38:46 pm »

Quote
Quote I think Type One is seriously harmed by the lack of respect for long.  At the same time, it would be harmed if Long was not restricted IF it had truly been dominating as I thought it should.

Before Mirrodin I would have totally agreed with you, but right now Long is and should not be dominating. I think the restrictions were not made because of long, but because the cards collide with the fundamentals they stated for type 1.

Koen
Logged
Nevyn
Guest
« Reply #55 on: December 01, 2003, 03:40:50 pm »

Quote from: Smmenen+Dec. 01 2003,11:55
Quote (Smmenen @ Dec. 01 2003,11:55)You are not understanding my point.  There is a skill gap that is wider than its been all year.
I really don't think so. That 'skill gap' has ALWAYS been there. Go back and read old B/R posts, and old posts while decks had the potential to dominate. Even in the midst of the so-called renaissance earlier in the year, there were still mystifying top 8 appearances and lots of play errors.

I just think you are noticing it more because it impacts you more directly, and because you don't have a lot of tourney proof to back up long.dec.

Also, the top decks from earlier in the year were easier to play and harder to hate out than Long, so they got more reliable top performances.
Logged
rozetta
Guest
« Reply #56 on: December 01, 2003, 03:42:37 pm »

Maybe it actually is metagaming. I mean, if combo is the best thing in the format, a lot of people might play control, in which case, playing good aggro like TnT should get you through the control matchups well (since you'll expect a higher percentage of those). Naturally, prison would also be a good choice. However, since slower artifact decks are being hated right now, the better choice is an aggro deck which should theoretically kill you before you cast that energy flux, or at least keep the last Juggernaught on the table to win. Of course, TnT has a naturally good matchup versus artifact prison anyway, so you also beat the people who went with the prison deck idea. Being one step ahead of the thinking is always good.
Logged
ctthespian
Guest
« Reply #57 on: December 01, 2003, 03:42:51 pm »

Quote from: Smmenen+Dec. 01 2003,12:22
Quote (Smmenen @ Dec. 01 2003,12:22)I think Type One is seriously harmed by the lack of respect for long.  At the same time, it would be harmed if Long was not restricted IF it had truly been dominating as I thought it should.
Waterbury Results (110 people)

Deck           % of field       % of top 8
Keeper         21.8             0
Long            9                 0
Fish (any)     5.4              25
Dragon         7.2              37.5    

Long dominating?  Good players were piloting Long in that tournament as well.  I've never seen Long shine dramatically, especially in the control heavy metagame that I'm in.  I made top 8 in Hadley with it and did ok in other local tournys, but never won with it.

-Keith
Logged
FyreStar
Guest
« Reply #58 on: December 01, 2003, 03:45:48 pm »

Quote from: Smmenen+Dec. 01 2003,15:22
Quote (Smmenen @ Dec. 01 2003,15:22)...it would be harmed if Long was not restricted IF it had truly been dominating as I thought it should.
You know, most people at this juncture would admit they were wrong rather than say that everyone else in the T1 community is wrong.  

Hey, at least you aren't an elitist.
Logged
Nevyn
Guest
« Reply #59 on: December 01, 2003, 03:52:57 pm »

uh oh, he dropped the e-bomb.

*grabs popcorn and waits for the sparks to fly*
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.066 seconds with 18 queries.