An old idea

[SliverKing]

A year or so ago Phantom Tape Worm and I were talking about what was wrong with Type 1... about the things we didnt like and the long term health of the format.  Without bannings or set rotations it is really inevitable that a certain critical mass of restricted cards will be reached the power level of decks will be too high for any fun at all.  

Unless you change the rules.

No other format uses the restricted list so we could change the rules regarding it without affecting anyone else.  The simplest option is to cap the number of restricted cards in a deck.  If you are only allowed 15 (for example) restricted cards suddenly you cant just throw every tutor, every draw effect and all the fast mana into a deck... you have to decide whats more important, and the power of combo to 'go off' becomes drastically limited.   By limiting the total power level of the decks, the number of broken first turns plays will also decrease.   More important than either of these though is that we can continue to play type 1 indefinetly.  By capping the number of restricted cards any future R&D mistakes will be greatly mitigated. To include the new broken card you'll have to take out an old favorite.  

Give this idea some thought.  I cant think of any particular downside, and the upsides are apparent.   The only real loser is consistent combo decks, but even then, 15 restricted cards still allows for very broken plays.

I've posted this in the open Type 1 forum so that everyone can reply if they have something useful to say.  I will ask the mods to delete any flaming posts.  Try to be constructive.

[wuaffiliate]

this idea has been posted numerous time and ive agreed with it every single time. its really the only way to combat critical mass, take a look at draw7.dec its basically every boken fast mana, draw and tutor card. something really needs to be done when a deck can be sucessfull by just picking a bunch of restricted cards and a few brainstorms and rituals then going and winning a tourney.

[riggy]

In the last year and a half, the game has changed drastically (fetches, wishes, tog, slaver, et al). As long as people continue to innovate in the format and as long as Wizards prints good utility cards, the supposed critical mass level will never be reached (since old "good" utility cards will cease to be as good). Check out some of the older restricted lists and see the good utility cards that aren't considered broken anymore. Eventually, the same thing will happen with the current brokenness (at least some of it).

[SpencerForHire]

Also, even the decks that have come closest to critical mass are now easily hated.
[card]Chalice of the Void[/card]
[card]Pyrostatic Pillar[/card]
[card]Trinisphere[/card]
Each of these cards make criticial mass more risky, if you don't first turn the person, or they go first, your as good as done with alot of these critical mass decks, or even if your just slowed, it evens the playing field enough that the threat of critical mass isn't even as much a threat.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Wow, I wouldn't normally expect this from a VA.

See this thread for "Rancor" / "centroles" treatment of the topic and the... 'unenthusiastic' response.
http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9307&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

As Mr. Metagame Numeric Analysis, I know there's nothing currently degenerate about Type 1. There is a balance of decks in the metagame, and combo is not on top. In fact, the most worrisome deck by the numbers is Hulk, a control deck. I still favor postponing policy recommendations over critical mass until there is something to recommend about.

[Razvan]

I will just overly complicate matters.

Honestly to God, I have never really had any problem with any card in Type 1, except the random Yawgmoth's Will going off at inopportune moments. Even when losing first turn to Long.dec before I got a shot, it still didn't matter. I got him back game 2, and game 3 was totally different.

So no worries. As Phil just said, Type 1 is fine right about now. If you restrict a card, you could destabilize a perfectly stable system, and that won't be pretty.

[MaxxMatt]

I think that havin a cap in the number od Restricted Cards will see only Control Players with decks like Hulk-like or Keeper-like win all the tourney.

Any Workshop.dec ( Stax, Slavery, Monobrown, Welder MUD and so on...) use potentially any number of restricted, the most they can

In the same situation I see any Combo.dec ( Tendril based, Dragon.based ) axed too much losing any reasons to play them because of the lack of brokeness.

Usually only any sort of Aggro and Control decks win without the full potential of the near complete set of Restricted.


Capping restricted will free anyone from the fear of running a control deck. At that point, No Brokeness from any other opponent can be compared to the ones Control can produce ( 6-7SoLoMoxen, Walk, Ancestral, Y.Will, MindTwist, LoA,FoF, Demonic, Mystical , Regrowth and we have used at least the most common ones without going up to 15.. ), if paired to thenormal counters' rate of these decks.

I talk in this way ONLY because for me now the metagame is well balanced.

Workshop can win agaisnt  Control and Combo and Aggro
Combo Can run fast and win against all of them
Control can try to slow the match to win against all of them
Aggro Control is usually a bad matchup for a lot of decks
and so on..
Aggro is a bit under the other decks as quality and  results but IMHO, only because not so many people works around it to propose good and metagamed aggro decks

Even if usually the strategies proposed tend to force to winor lose entire games and mtches after 3 or 4 moves, I don't feel right on condamning  too much broken decks.
Again IMHO, usually are the players that can win or lose with those few "moves", not "the moves " themselves...  

my <2 cents

[wuaffiliate]

i agree the format is quite balanced, nothing sticks out like a soar thumb. but critical mass is dangerous and decks like the nwo dead long and the current draw7 are going to threaten the format untill something is done. fact is that the restricted list is so long that you can just build a deck with only restricted cards and do well, that leaves alot to be desired in deck building.

it may not be the right time right now to initiate a restricted card restriction, but in time it seems that it will be a must.

[Razvan]

Problem is, Long can goldfish into a victory early. However, no matter how stable Steve M. says it is, even one speedbump can derail it heavily.

The speedbumps need to be considered. Otherwise, yeah, Long is the most broken deck so far.

[SliverKing]

Nowhere in my proposal did I say the environment wasnt balanced or that any particular deck needed to be crippled.   This isnt about the right now, its about the long term health of the format.  I think a lot of the popular decks right now wouldnt care at all about a restricted card cap, which is part of what makes it the right time to install it.

[Smmenen]

My opinion is that long term concerns about the health of the format are completely unwarranted.

Why?  Because the poeple who make t1 rules are flexible: they are reasonable people who will try to help correct things.  That's why we have a restricted list.  And if the day arrives where the restricted list no longer serves that purpose, then the time will come to advocate a max number of restricted cards.

For that reason, I think talking about the long term health of the format is probably not to be concerned about, since flexibility to me, means that an answer may be found.  To be concerned at this point in time seems to be a sign of pessimism.  

Steve Menendian

[SliverKing]

I agree with most of Smmenen's points.  My post is a sign of pessimism, and that as long as the restricted list works any other restrictions on deck building are unneeded.
I simply dont think the restricted list works.  Not well enough anyway.  The sheer number of fast mana spells, tutors, and draw effects already restricted means that any future restrictions will be more of an annoyance than a deck crippling device.   The slots previously used with that card will just be filled by other almost-as-broken restricted cards.
I will re-iterate that this isnt aimed at any particular deck, in fact I think it would have a negligable impact on the metagame as it stands today(depending of course on what number the cap was set at).  I do think it will make future governance of the format immensily easier, and create a safetynet of sorts for just how broken the format can ever be.
Perhaps you disagree with the need for such a safetynet now, but what I'm really looking for is a good argument how it could hurt, either in popularity or playability of the format.  My opinion is that it would help in both areas, but I'm assuming someone will disagree, and I'd like to hear why.

[BrokenNut]

If there is no need for it why bother? Any unnecessary messing with the B & R list is a bad idea. If the format is healthy and balanced, why try to mess it up? If it ain't broke, don't fix it! That is exactly the situation we have here. And restrictions still work to kill decks, or at least tone them down to a playable level. Look at GAT and Long. 2 decks that dominated, then were neutered by effective restrictions. There is no need for a cap. Also, if we do put in a cap, it either has to be high enough to not matter, or else it will mess up decks. Look at Keeper and any combo deck. Neither of these decks are very dominating, but a cap on the number of restricted cards would seriously harm them since they are both at least 25+ restricted cards. There is no need to be worrying about a restriction cap at this time so don't even bother with it, it is just going to cause unnecessary arguments and flaming that we don't need.

[MaxxMatt]

the real point of my previous little disapointement is that without a cap now we can play any Workshop.dec and any Combo.dec. they are really good because of the huge amount of broken cards.

Any Control deck would be touched by the cap.

IMHO, the metagame is balanced ONLY because still exist broken decks like the 2 above that can compete agaisnt any Control.dec.

With a cap of any type Control would win any toruneys undefeated and at that time the metagame would become completely unbalanced.

The high "Number of Free Restricted" is the key not to be overrunned by Togs and Soldiers.




.

[SpencerForHire]

Not to bash anyone, but why is this even being discussed, its a good idea in concept in an uncontrolled, broken meta.  But if you haven't noticed there are no overpowerful decks, and there is no critical mass.
If 4 Gush GAT still existed.
Or 4 LED 4 Burning Long still existed.
then a restriction on restricteds might be in order..

[Razvan]

Gimbles: I wonder if even those 2 decks in today's Meta would be critical mass. Only one way to find out.

[jazzykat]

Umm....I played in a tournament with draw 7. Do you know what one ill timed counter spell or duress does to an otherwise bitching hand. it turns it to shit. I can drop a full hand only to have my draw 7 countered whoopee! It happens and I just sit dead in the water for a while. I play with tons of restricted cards. I think the idea is noble but is not what t1 is about. Furthermore, combo is a bitch to play (except dragon) and takes a lot of practice and mathematical skill which I only have partially.

We play to be borken! Not to have parity. Honestly 1.5 does a lot to weaken a lot of decks so that more people have a chance.

[racetraitor]

You know, I think it's kinda funny that every time this discussion pops up, JP steps in and tries to talk some sense into people, but no one seems to listen. Putting a cap on the # of restricted cards has one effect, it kills certain kinds of combo decks. Combo decks that aren't dominating or warping the metagame, but actually help stabilizing it because it keeps other decks "honest" to a degree. With combo represented, more thought has to be put into deckbuilding since you can't just assume that a couple of StP's or similar will be the only thing you'll need to survive the early game. The threat of fast combo also makes other decks jettison over-costed stuff and increase their own speed. To me this is a sign of progression, not stagnation.

However, the biggest argument against a restricted card cap is the fact that it is just another way of banning cards, something Wizards have said numerous times that they don't want to do in Type 1. If you can't play more than 10 restricted cards, who's gonna use Enlightened tutor? Frantic Search? Voltaic Key? Braingeyser? The only cards that'll see play are the same old moxen, ancestral, walk, will, lotus, demonic...the cream of the crop. It wouldn't do anything to help budget players, esp. not with cards like Workshop and Bazaar unrestricted. We'd just end up with Type 1.5 plus the power cards, which would become even more unbalanced and swingy because they are so far above the rest of your deck in power level. Anyway, we've heard all this before, and since most players seem to agree that the Type1 meta has been remarkably balanced since Jan 1st. I'm wondering why this topic was brought up again in the first place?

[rvs]

I'd just like to say I agree 100% with what racetraitor said. Saves me a bunch of typing

[Smmenen]

I agree with most of Smmenen's points.  My post is a sign of pessimism, and that as long as the restricted list works any other restrictions on deck building are unneeded.
I simply dont think the restricted list works.  Not well enough anyway.  The sheer number of fast mana spells, tutors, and draw effects already restricted means that any future restrictions will be more of an annoyance than a deck crippling device.   The slots previously used with that card will just be filled by other almost-as-broken restricted cards.
I will re-iterate that this isnt aimed at any particular deck, in fact I think it would have a negligable impact on the metagame as it stands today(depending of course on what number the cap was set at).  I do think it will make future governance of the format immensily easier, and create a safetynet of sorts for just how broken the format can ever be.
Perhaps you disagree with the need for such a safetynet now, but what I'm really looking for is a good argument how it could hurt, either in popularity or playability of the format.  My opinion is that it would help in both areas, but I'm assuming someone will disagree, and I'd like to hear why.

I think you've got the argument the wrong-way around.  I'd say the burden is on you to demonstrate that things are "bad" as it stands now and prove that, not for someone to explain why your proposal would be harmful.  It might not hurt, and it might not be a bad idea, but for me that isn't what is at issue (although I don't agree with that).  The general issue for me is that such a change would only be warranted if you could prove a problem.  Things should stay as they are unless there is reason to change them, not that things should change unless you can argue why it shouldn't.

As for the two criteria you listed, I think Type One will continue to grow in popularity and playability - not the other way round.  

Steve

[gzeiger]

I guess I agree that in the long run something like this will probably become necessary, although the cap should probably be rather higher (perhaps 25 or even more). However I think we're probably still years from reaching that point. I can live with Smmenen's approach for now - trust the policy makers, and when this becomes necessary we can set the policy as needed.

Without allowing the format to reach that point before making such a policy you virtually guarantee that the cap will be set at the wrong level and will become institutionalized for years if not forever at some level as arbitrary as the continuing embarassment of Earthcraft and Doomsday.

I also think JP is right in saying that this proposal would significantly unbalance the format. I do not object to the presence of combo in the environment so long as it isn't ridiculous, and none of the present ones are.

The time will come for this, but I don't think we're very close to it yet.

[SliverKing]

Well I think what this thread is devolving into is people who think that the combo decks are healthy for the environment and are generally happy with a very high power level of first turn plays, and those who dont.  I dont want to get into that argument.    
My suggestion was one designed to curb such decks without hurting the ability to use type 1's signature cards (and hence its appeal).   Its my opinion that a certain decktypes are a turnoff to keeping people in the format, but I know thats a perspective that some people dont share, or perhaps dont care about.
However its not something that anyone is going to convince someone else of by arguement, so I dont even want to get into it.  I was looking for good solid arguments against my idea, and I got pretty much what I expected.   I do appreciate the responses.

[Dante]

I think a bigger issue with the growth and popularity AT THIS POINT in type 1 is the power of older, unrestricted cards that require 4-ofs like Workshop, Bazaar, Mana Drain (although there was an Italian print run of Legends), moreso than any critical mass of combo decks.

NOTE THAT I AM NOT ADVOCATING RESTRICTING ANY OF THOSE CARDS,  please leave that discussion for another thread.

My point is that in the last 2 years, I feel the DCI has done a good job of removing things from the Type 1 environment that were bad for it (not counting silly Type 1.5 related things like Earthcraft) without removing any of the "powerful" cards simply because they were powerful and people would complain about having to purchase them or innovate against them (i.e. remember the cries to restrict workshop because "stax was a monster lock deck that didn't let you play your game"?  Where are those cries now?  ...that's what I thought).

I do think that for a long-term Type 1 growth plan, SOMETHING needs to be done about the fact that MOST of the winning decks rely on Power9, Mana Drain, Workshop, or Bazaar to power them to wins and that the print runs of these cards does limit the number of real competitive players in the Type 1 field.  Obviously the proxy tournaments are one way of dealing with this issue (although I'm in agreement that it should be 10 or 12 proxies, not just 5), but there are no other alternatives besides re-prints or restricting those cards (the first is out of our control, for the most part, and the second would have to have a deck/decks prove degenerate or environment distorting)....

Bill

[Ric_Flair]

Hey, before this thread "devolves" anymore, can someone provide me with a workable defintion of critical mass?  By that I mean either some sort of test or indicia to indicate when a format has reached critical mass.  I DON'T want examples, I want a definition.  I know that there are enough Draw 7s that the effect is essentially unrestricted, but is this critical mass?  I dunno.  Before we even consider restricting restricted cards because of critical mass, I think we at least have to define was critical mass is.  So, Sliver King or anyone else, what is critical mass, why is it bad, and finally, how does restricting the number of restricted cards cure the problem?  People always say it would, but how do they know, given that no one really knows what critical mass is?  If anyone wants to change the B&R list, adding, subtracting, or restricting restricted cards, I think it is fair to require them to carry the burden of proof.  And all I have seen so far is conclusions that critical mass is a problem as opposed to facts that support that conclusion.  This does not meet the burden of proof.

[Matt]

Critical Mass: When a certain deck in the format is made entirely of one-ofs (either by restriction or because the deck just doesn't want to run more than one), AND that deck is also dominating the format to the point that it needs to be neutered. At that point, restrictions are ineffective, and the stronger "BAN" command must be used.

Most people also allow such a deck to have multiples of an "unrestrictable" card like Chromatic Sphere.

Note 1: With that definition, "critical mass" doesn't happen except in formats where a restricted list is used - in other words, Type One only. Also, formats that actually rotate sets out have a built-in way to fix this power accumulation.

Note 2: That definition is also dependent on the minimum deck size. If decks were ten cards, critical mass could probably be reached with just Beta cards; with sixty, it's taken ten years to even think about such a phenomenon.

2001-era Academy decks were the first decks to come close to fitting this description, though they usually failed the "domainting" qualification. And the evolution of such 'combo' decks - which are invariably not dependent upon any one combination of cards, just lots of free mana and cheap draw - has lead to Neo-Academy, then Long, then TPS - and they're getting closer and closer everytime. Combo might have only one LED to work with now, but that's still one more than they had before someone decided to use LED in a combo deck, and Wizards' "no bannings" Vintage policy ensures that they will never be forced back to zero Diamonds.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Critical Mass Test: When a supply of broken spells exist such that (a) a combo deck can routinely go off in the first two turns AND/OR (b) any deck exhibits metagame distortion/dominance for a prolonged period AND there is no card for which restriction would inhibit the hazardous deck.

This definition leaves room for the idea of a "NonCombo Critical Mass", because I don't like to pin myself to just one category of deck being potentially dangerous. (For instance, a sudden superabundance of five-power creatures costing one mana could theoretically bring about an aggro critical mass; we've just never had cause to think such a thing will happen.) Also, 'prolonged period' is deliberately elastic to the speed of format evolution, because we have no Premier events to provide a definitive framework.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

Wow, does this thread bring back memories.  Always good to think critically about the restricted list and its implications on the game.


Anyway, here's your definition ric:

Critical mass occurs when a deck is made entirely, or almost entirely, of the restricted list AND becomes too dominant.  The deck cannot be stopped by restricting key components because those components are already restricted.  And so the deck cannot be stopped period.

Personally, I'd always felt as though there should be a cap on restricted cards because I believed that games that were decided too quickly were bad for the format.  Eh, they may be in some cases, but I've learned to accept vintage the way it currently is.[/url]

[Smmenen]

I think a bigger issue with the growth and popularity AT THIS POINT in type 1 is the power of older, unrestricted cards that require 4-ofs like Workshop, Bazaar, Mana Drain (although there was an Italian print run of Legends), moreso than any critical mass of combo decks.

NOTE THAT I AM NOT ADVOCATING RESTRICTING ANY OF THOSE CARDS,  please leave that discussion for another thread.

My point is that in the last 2 years, I feel the DCI has done a good job of removing things from the Type 1 environment that were bad for it (not counting silly Type 1.5 related things like Earthcraft) without removing any of the "powerful" cards simply because they were powerful and people would complain about having to purchase them or innovate against them (i.e. remember the cries to restrict workshop because "stax was a monster lock deck that didn't let you play your game"?  Where are those cries now?  ...that's what I thought).

I do think that for a long-term Type 1 growth plan, SOMETHING needs to be done about the fact that MOST of the winning decks rely on Power9, Mana Drain, Workshop, or Bazaar to power them to wins and that the print runs of these cards does limit the number of real competitive players in the Type 1 field.  Obviously the proxy tournaments are one way of dealing with this issue (although I'm in agreement that it should be 10 or 12 proxies, not just 5), but there are no other alternatives besides re-prints or restricting those cards (the first is out of our control, for the most part, and the second would have to have a deck/decks prove degenerate or environment distorting)....

Bill

Well said Bill.  Folks, this is a critical issue.  In a format where unsanctioned tournaments are not the norm during the convention season, and where people are not englightened enough to allow 10+ proxies - I beleive that the extreme rarity of Workshops, Bazaars, and Drains (I own four of each) will be the true break on the popularity of Type One - not the number of restricted cards.


Not to toot my own horn - but I made some VERY impassioned pleas to save Workshop, that I suspect definately helped.  Remember Oscar's campaign and then my rebuttal in my Old v. New School Article?
Steve

[dicemanx]

Perhaps I'm totally alone in not worrying about "critical mass".

I think we're already there, and there's nothing damaging about it. We have plenty of cheap tutors, chreap card drawers, cheap disruption spells, and cheap mana producers. However, put together, they don't amount to anything that could dominate for two reasons: there are some pretty potent hosers in the format (specifically Null Rod and the faster Chalice), and such decks are not just fast or resilient enough to completely overcome control.

Furthermore, look at the downgrade in quality of the types of cards WotC puts out these days. Stuff like Spoils of the Vault, Chrome Mox, Thirst for Knowledge, Thoughtcast etc exemplify the power level we are dealing with. This is simply not enough to put together a dominant deck, even if you were allowed to run 8 copies of those cards. Even if Wizards continues to design cards similar in power level, I don't think we will get any closer to this "critical mass" that seems to spell impending doom according to some.


The only thing that *does* concern me is if the strongest deck types require the use of very rare cards like Dante and Smennen argue. The problem for me is not the lack of accessibility or affordability of these cards, since that can always be dealt with via holding proxy events. What concerns me is the stagnation of T1 when everyone and their brother starts showing up with the same 3-4 top level decks. I do not share Smennen's enthusiasm about such a scenario, because even if the skilled players will win more often than not on average, T1 magic has an *humongous*, undeniable luck component that would quickly make things unexciting.

Perhaps the best solution, once we start having more and more proxy events and people catch on that they should be playing the top level decks exclusively, is to restrict cards like Drain, Bazaar, and Workshop in the interest of variety rather than the typical criteria we use today.