February 28, 2020, 11:10:58 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Where did the Good Players Go?  (Read 12344 times)
fancy having a go at it?
Basic User
Posts: 2390

View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: December 01, 2003, 03:58:03 pm »

There are decks that you need to tune to a metagame or that beat a metagame, and then there are decks that beat the metagame.  If your environment is all Sligh, you could play WW or TnT or Parfait and clean house.  Or you could play Long or Tog or Chalice/Scepter Keeper and clean house.  And not have to worry about random decks.

Team Meandeck: "As much as I am a clueless, credit-stealing, cheating homo I do think we would do well to consider the current stage of the Vintage community." -Smmenen
Dr. Sylvan
« Reply #61 on: December 01, 2003, 04:00:55 pm »

Geez, five hours and 50+ replies. Smmenen sure knows how to rile up the crowd with a good shout of "Yer shit!" And now the e-bomb! This is great! =)

I think the earlier statement about needing only a few hours per week of testing deserves attention.

Quote 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.
In Type 1 especially, people are usually pursuing it as a hobby or, heaven forbid, a game. A few hours per week will yield at most a couple dozen games. This is not enough to produce highly optimized decks like something you would expect at a Pro Tour. If that is what you are looking for, you're in the wrong format. The prize support simply isn't large enough to get players testing in that manner. Also, there is a lot of intricate knowledge behind a Type 1 deck. Most people are not eager to switch all over the place as you are, since they notice tangible declines in victory playing decks they are unfamiliar with. This means that the testing they do isn't as valid as if it were done after the player was fully competent with the deck, so they'll conclude different things. Not everyone has Paragons for playtesting partners.

As to 'metagame coherence', the reason our format is blatantly more fragmented than the others is its small size. Waterbury was considered *huge* at 110 people, whereas a PT format will have that size of data churned out constantly from PTQs. It's easier to establish the best decks when the tournaments are closely bunched together and there are fewer differences among decklists of the same archetype. Differences in local metagames based on player preference also make a much larger difference in Type 1, where card acquisition is actually an issue for some people or some decks.
« Reply #62 on: December 01, 2003, 05:37:04 pm »

I didn't post this thread to say that people are shit.  The title was just to draw attention to the issues I raised within the thread.  I'm trying to see if people are thinking critically about Type One and what we want from it.  I think the responses so far are revealing.  Nevyn's post and a few others really rang true.  It could be that Type One is never going to see the kind of metagame coherence without a driving central tournament like Gencon - but the experiences of the last year lead me to believe otherwise.   Since we've a variety of viewpoints expressed and in consideration of the changes to the format today - I'll put this thread to sleep to focus on other issues at the moment.  
If there is a skill gap, I believe it can be overcome with testing.  But whatever the case, I think we have a good basis for beleiving that Type One can be a "real" format.  I'd just like to see that progress continue - in spite of its structural limitations.


Pages: 1 2 [3]
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 0.038 seconds with 21 queries.