New Decks Are Hard To Make.

[InsaneScrub]

Given the current metagame, and the insanely fast decks, I think it's becomes a greater challenge to put together a challenging tier 1 deck or a deck that can compete with the speed and versatility of the decks currently in the metagame.  (Excuse the redundancy, please.)

I see many people people post a lot of good deck, bad ones too, but the question that has been striking me hard lately is, can anyone actually make a deck better than the ones currently in the format?  We shall see what comes out of the new expansion I suppose, though my hopes for some insanely powerful type 1 card might be replinshed once again.

Please speak your opinion on this matter.

[BreathWeapon]

I often wonder whether or not the speed of the format is the sole factor responsible for reducing the amount of innovationg in T1. Given the number of minds and renewed interest in the format, there seems like there should be more decks entering the format. Inevitably, I think T1 may simply become a metagame defined by its extremes like Tog, Slavery, Trinistax, Dragon, Twister, TnT/Stacker instead of "good decks" like EBA, Madness etc.

[riggy]

Inevitably, I think T1 may simply become a metagame defined by its extremes like Tog, Slavery, Trinistax, Dragon, Twister, TnT/Stacker instead of "good decks" like EBA, Madness etc.

Though it's small, Columbus had 2 U/G Madness decks in the T8, and at GP Columbus, Soupboy won the Type 1 tourney with EBA-esque Mint Skittles. And I recall reading about wtf.dec winning a big tourney last month. There are 3 "good decks" that win through the "extremes."

There's plenty of innovation, and there's plenty of cards out there for people to innovate with. There is no reason to believe that since we (Type I community as a whole) came up with 6 new competitive decks in the last 6 months that in the next 6 months, the same thing won't happen again.

[Ric_Flair]

One of the issues right now with building decks is what I like to think of as deck convergence.  The idea here is that in order to make a deck that is different better it has to be tweaked significantly.  Once this is done, and done properly, the deck is essential a bad version of an already established deck.  The best example of this is in Standard right now, U/W control v. R/W control, but Vintage has examples too.  Take for example, Stacker, wMUD, and TnT.  They all run many of the same cards and use a very similar philosophy, but adding cards to Stacker to make it better either forces you to go the wMUD route or the TnT route.  Either way, tweaking Stacker makes it something else.  So if you can whittle out some space in between the juggernauts of the metagame in a way that avoids convergence I think there is a chance.

[InsaneScrub]

I agree with everyones post here, I have seen the same perplexity and it is the same reason I brought the discussion up.  I think madness is a slow deck though, though some versions of madness are competitive, I just don't like the deck.

On the subject of the most powerful decks in type 1, I need to say this.  I think if they restricted some of the cards in those decks to make them slightly weaker, like intuition, mishra's workshop, and bazaar of baghdad, 3 obviously insanely powerful cards, then those decks would become weak enough to slow the format back down enough to allow some of the other decks a chance to compete.  The speed of some of these decks is getting out of control.

That is why I honestly believe it's hard to make a better deck than what we have already, and closes the openess the format should have.  Type 1 has so many cards it should be the most open format, any good deck should win often.  Some decks in the format does not allow this to happen though.  Again, they are insanely powerful.

[BreathWeapon]

Some decks only have a moment of success before they die out. Yes, U/G Fish and Madness have had some success, but how long is it going to last? Look at O-Stompy, it was all the rage for what maybe a month at best?

[FORCE-OF-WILL]

Plz expain to me how intuition is "insanely broken" and/or its even in the same class as workshop and bazar?

Problems with intuioning? REB it :/

[Phantom Tape Worm]

I think a lot of why you believe it is so difficult to create something new and good is in fact because you are buying too much into what such and such says is "the best deck".  The current "top tier" of decks that you seem to hold on a pedestal are not without weaknesses.

A lot of times in deck building you'll hear someone say: "how is this deck better than x already existing tier 1 deck?".  IMO This is the wrong question to ask of a given deck.  The question really should be "what advantages does this deck offer that already existing tier 1 deck does not?".  It's a subtle difference, but the first statement implies a value judgement (because it uses the word "better") and that value judgement can be very discouraging to someone who is looking to innovate.

It's not THAT hard to create something new that is playable.  Once you have a deck that is playable, you can then metagame it appropriately and play it optimally.  If you can win a tournament with it, you now have a successful innovation.  If you're looking to prove whether or not a deck is good and can compete then I emplore you, please do not look to the talking heads on a web site for approval.  Tournament data should be  the ONLY acceptable proof for what is good.

For example, waSP an adept who plays in MN, has won several highly competitive tournaments using R/G beatz.  R/G BEATZ??!?!!?!! HUH???  Yes, even decks that are written off as "bad decks" by the elite of TMD (including myself) can win tourneys, repeatedly.  Given what i just said in the previous paragraph, what does that tell you both about the deck itself and the other "tier 1" decks he had to face in order to win?

[jpmeyer]

As the metagame breakdowns are showing, most of the older sets are pretty crappy when it comes to the power level of the cards in them.  Now that people are realizing this, it is actually becoming easier to bring new decks to Type 1 simply by porting Extended and Standard decks.

[InsaneScrub]

You have a strong point, and yes I thoroughly agree with you.  Though I would like to say this in rebuttal.  I have played against almost all the decks, and have lost to many of the net deck Tog/Slaver/Dragon to a name a few.  And what I learned from these decks are they are so good, that those three decks alone can handle just about anything I can make.  Dragon to me is a degnerate deck, Meanslaver too, Tog though just seems like an insanely good deck, though not bahroken.

Maybe this is why I have felt so greatly about it being hard to make a good deck.  Though the true reason I find it hardest to make a deck is because almost every deck type you can think of making has been made before, so it becomes tougher and tougher to make a new deck in type 1.  Tweaking an old deck is not the same as making a new deck.  Making a new archetype is even harder.  So I stand on my statement, new decks are hard to make.

[MasterIth]

there is no one real dominant deck in t1, i should know, because i have played against almost all viable one, it is really rock paper scissors in t1, there is no clearcut winner all the time, so it is still ok to make a new deck, because there is not one uber-brocken card that just rapes all other decks, there is a sort of balance. I suggest making a deck that has been stable for years, GOOD sui black, i mean mono color with all the fixins.

[wuaffiliate]

the key to winning is to be more broken or just be more disruptive.


PS. sui sucks

[MasterIth]

ps, it does not suck, i have consistently held my ground with it against top tier decks.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

the key to winning is to be more broken or just be more disruptive.

PS. sui sucks

It is this type of thinking that causes discussions like this and dissuades people from innovating.  You will always arrive at the conclusion that the current "top tier decks" are the "best" if you follow the train of thought that is exemplified by this statement.  And that is because this statement is the product of blindly following whatever the type 1 elite say with little to no thought behind it.

Wu, please explain what you mean more clearly; this rhetoric you are spouting out is worthless to this discussion.

[InsaneScrub]

Thank you soo much for saying that Phantom.    

The topic is, it's hard to make a new deck.  (original that is)

I firmly stand on this, cause I have had troubles making new decks with all the cards available, because I can't seem to find something that will be more broken enough to win, or good enough to compete with the better decks of type 1, like Tog, smeanslaver, and dragon.dec.  Part of this is because I really need more work at deck building.  The third part of the reason I find it hard to make a deck is because there have been so many decks made already.  It's hard to make an original deck.

[wuaffiliate]

Ug madness is viable because its more disruptive, its not really broken or anything it just a great consistancy of threats and disruption, just like fish and landstill. This is really just making the opponent play on your terms, which obviously is never good for them.

Trinistax/Workshop Slaver/Draw7 and so on are on the opposite side of the spectrum they run all the broken mana they can to try and "out broken" their opponent, they win from just being able to do more earlier when its harder for their opponents to do anything to stop them.

The only middle ground is control such as EBA and keeper, they dont out break anyone or disrupt consistantly. they just need to deal with enough threats to take control of the game and make the opponent then play the game on their terms.

Basically what im trying to say is that you need to either be able to kill yout opponent before they can stop you, or be able to stop those who are trying to do such a thing you you.

ill leave the sui thing alone since its a hopeless argument.

sorry i dont have much time to go into it more thoroughly i have to go make money and sit at a deck for 8 hours.

[dicemanx]

Wu is essentially correct.

There are two types of decks that are succeeding at the moment: decks that have insane card drawing or that run very powerful disruption. There is no longer much of a distinction between aggro, control, and combo - instead, the distinction lies in the decks that focus on either card drawing or disruption bombs. For example, combo and aggro decks have taken a page out of control's book and now run card drawing engines that can put many control decks to shame:

Aggro/aggro-combo decks running powerful card drawing engines:

FCG
O.Stompy
Fish
neo-GAT
Hulk
Dragon
Twister.dec
Combo-Slavery


Alternately, there are decks that rely less on card drawing and more on potentially game-ending disruptive bombs:

R/G-hate
Fish
O.Stompy
TriniStax
wMUD


The remaining control decks are sort of "middle-ground", packing relatively equal mixes of disruption and card drawing:

Keeper
Landstill
EBA

"Pure" aggro decks (which are essentially slow combo decks) can compete, but they are often too slow to contend with the faster combo decks:

TnT
Madness
Goblin Sligh


There *is* room to innovate, but to come up with a competitive deck, you either need to run insane card drawing or pack powerful disruption. If we search for the best card drawing tools, we come up with:

Bazaar+Squee
Survival
Brainstorm+shuffle effects
Intuition+AK/DA
Thirst for Knowledge
Standstill
Recruiter/Ringleader/Food Chain
Goblin Lackey (not card drawing, but significant card advantage)
Welder (not card drawing, but significant card advantage)

Plus some long-forotten cards like:

Sylvan Library
Ophidian


For powerful disruption (ie disruption that typically generates mass card advantage) we have stuff like:

Blood Moon
Chalice of the Void
Null Rod
Trinisphere


If we can add to those lists, then perhaps we can find new, innovative decks. However, it seems that the most powerful options have been thoroughly considered thus far, so innovation is more difficult given the amount of development T1 has seen in the past year. I agree with PTW in that you shouldn't pay attention to what is considered the "top-tiered" decks, because quite frankly all of the decks that I listed are able to compete and its just a matter of making the right choice for your meta.

[jpmeyer]

A good part of it is because of Type 1 decks focus on exploiting extremes and it can be very difficult to resist some of these extremes.

Can your deck deal with an opponent that can more or less ignore you? (Tog)
Can your deck deal with a deck if your cards backfire? (Slaver)
Can your deck deal with a deck that kills turn 1? (Belcher)
Can your deck deal with a deck that has inevitability? (Dragon)
Can your deck deal with a deck that can stop your first spell and then kill you? (Madness)

and so on.

[Kushluk]

There is a climate that exists here, and that exists in general that dissuades innovation unless you are already someone who is recognized by others as some imposing figure.

Many times it seems people here are more interested in dissing eachother and getting full membership than making any progress.

I am a big believer that there are many potential decks out there that are yet to be discovered - I think the components of those decks can many times be best found in the annals of Old T2 (or whatever it was called), that used many cards that are forgotten about today.

A few days ago I was experimenting with using Mirror Universe in slaver control instead of Mindslaver. This isn't a particularly good example, but it shows someone (me) trying to recyle and re-digest old tech in a new (years later) metagame.

[Swanky]

The problem with creating new decks is that many of the "top decks" out there are as well-built as they can be, given the card pool currently provided.  That having been said, do not be dismayed!  With the thousands of cards available, certainly some recondite synergy or abstruse source of power has been overlooked.  It's a perpetual search!  Heck, a few years ago [card]Diminishing Returns[/card] was relegated to a few horrid casual decks I had laying around.  Its station in life has markedly improved since. :)

An 'innovation' is typically defined as a new variation upon existing beliefs or objects that is generally accepted.  Going with that definition, it behooves all Type 1 players to tirelessly and unremittingly tinker and prod at our decks until they reach optimal form for a rather entropic metagame.  I have played [card]Orcish Librarian[/card] in contemporary Sligh decks, and it has won me games.  That having been said, please don't start all future Sligh lists with "4x Librarians."  It's just poor form.  I digress!

Keep fiddling around!  If G/W Beats can place in some tournaments, anything can.

[MooSE]

Building new decks is very difficult, that's true.  It's kinda like...you can't see the forest because all of the trees are in the way.  There are so many good decks that it's mind boggling to try to think of something that can even contend with them.   It takes alot of time, good deck building skills and a ton of knowledge of the game to build a new deck.  Then, you have to be "Approved" by members of a community, and often will get shut down unless your deck is 100% with out a doubt good.   That's alot of work, especially to possibly get shut down in the end and I believe that's why there aren't tons of new decks being made.

[Lucentspirit]

If you consider how many Tier 1 decks have been made compared to the number of people trying to innovate them you shouldn't get at all frustrated when you can't make something new (and Teir 1).
      I also think the more innovation that happens and as more new Teir 1 decks are made the harder it will be to make new decks with the current card pool. But that's why new cards are constantly being printed!  
     Really good new decks are hard to make. All the really obvious good cards have pretty much been "discovered" and in many ways we are constantly waiting for the release of a new set or an overwelming need for inovation to find those "diamond in the ruff" cards.
      I find when I'm in the mood to try and build something new the first thing I do is start looking at cards. I just randomly start looking through all the cards ever printed and BOOM suddenly I'll have an idea for somehting new. If nothing else I think it's fun just to look at the art work and flavor text of cards long forgotten. If looking though a zillion cards isn't your style just start surfing the web. There are posting all over the place of new deck idea's and cards pre-selected as reading "break me".
      I think sometimes the difference between a Tier 2 deck and Tier 1 deck can be just a few cards, or maybe the splash of a different color. It's very possible someone has created an amazing deck, but, it hasn't had much attention because the deck builder is an average player and just hasn't done well enough for their deck to get the attention it should.
       Anyway that's just my opinion. I'm off to try and break Foil, Merieke Ri Berit, Dance of the Dead, Genesis, and Spore Frog.

[Zanetanos101]

I partially agree with the original poster's assertion that new decks are hard to make.  I agree with this too, and quite frankly before I switched to becoming a dedicated T1 player (about 2 months ago) I played a little bit of T2, and its the same way little innovation.  

That being said, there is hope.  The last T2 tournament I saw (its in the same shop as the T1 I attend on Friday), someone did fairly well with a G/W lifegain deck.. yes a lifegain deck using janky stuff like Well of Lost Dreams and Ageless Entity for the win.  It was pretty cool to see a rogue deck due well in the sea of Ravager that is currently T2.  I think the same thing is possible in T1 though, there is always hope.  Work on rogue decks people!

[Zherbus]

The biggest trick is to ignore shit that just plain doesn't matter to you. There are decks that will impact every meta on some level, there are decks that you just won't ever see, and then there are decks that you'll only see where you live. Bottom line is that you need to be a metagamer as much as a deckbuilder.

[ndongo]

As a monogreen player the trick for me to construct viable decks is to, as Zherbus points out, ignore many threats. How do I try and accomplish this? By having sufficient speed in my decks, which essentially boils down to fast mana and fast creatures. I have on occasion built slow green decks that rely on combos to lock down my opponent. Below are two examples of my decks ideas... I have to be innovative because I am a monogreen player... and especially since I don't believe in using other people's decks.

Monogreen beatdown/aggro (I may not use the correct term for the deck but this is how I refer to it)

15 Forest
1 Mox Emerald
4 Birds of Paradise
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Elvish Spirit Guide

4 Giant Growth
4 Rancor
4 Berserk

4 Greater Good

4 Yavimaya Ants
4 Branchsnap Lorian
4 Viridian Zealot
4 Pouncing Jaguar

This deck has succeded more than I originally had expected, mainly because of Greater Good. Without it the deck would stall after 5-6 rounds of play but after I introduced GG some funny and insane card drawing makes it continue until the opponent dies. The most difficult opponents so far are other creature heavy decks. Against recognized good decks, I've only played Hulk Smash (6-3), Sui (9-3) and Fish (5-4).

Monogreen rogue/control (same as before, this is how I refer to the deck)

14 Forest   
1 Mox Emerald
1 Sol Ring
4 Llanowar Elves
4 Fyndhorn Elves
4 Elvish Spirit Guide

4 Root Maze
4 Winter Orb
2 Null Rod
4 Tangle Wire
2 Damping Matrix

3 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
4 Viridian Zealot
4 Yavimaya Elder

4 Troll Ascetic

A strange deck that surpringsingly works best against decks that use few creatures.

These two decks I posted to illustrate the point that some people have made that it's viable, at least for a while, to play with innovative decks (or unusual as deck #1 is a no brainer).

I also have a monogreen Hurricane kill deck which is completely creatureless. It utilizes the Ashnod's Altar + Fecundity + Saproling Cluster and Zuran Orb + Fastbond and kills with Hurricane. It's not very viable  but it's funny to get the combo going and win with a gigantic Hurricane.

It looks something like this:

21 Forest   
1 Mox Emerald
1 Sol Ring

4 Fecundity
4 Saproling Cluster
4 Ashnod’s Altar
2 Thran Foundry

3 Naturalize
2 Eladamri’s Vineyard
2 Zuran Orb
4 Moment’s Peace
4 Nature’s Lore
3 Isochron Scepter
1 Fastbond

4 Hurricane

Anyway that's all for me for now

[Nantuko Rice]

i think type 1 comes down to one thing... maindeck hate. it's what most of the aggro decks do. ankh-sligh with null rods and blood moons, fish with null rods, etc. plus the sideboard is always full of hate.

good hate cards will shut down more than one deck.

Ground Seal > Dragon, Slaver, Goblin Welder decks
Root Maze > TPS, Dragon
Null Rod > TPS, Belcher, Slaver
Rack n Ruin > Worshop
Blood Moon > Tog, Non-Mono-U Control

etc

OStompy did well because of maindeck root mazes, null rods, hidden gibbons, and ground seals. Those cards slowed down the enemy while stompy continued to pump out beats.

Ankh-Sligh continues to play efficient weenies while wasting the opponent's counterspells on hate cards such as null rods and blood moon.

[defector]

As hard as it is to make a good rogue deck, it's easier right now than it has been a long time.  It's hard to make a good deck, that's not a bad thing.  The more balanced the balanced the meta, the more room there is for exploitation.  Poeple have much more to worry about than you, the tools are there in almost any color for some hybrid theory and the speed of the format is no more nasty than it was in 94.
defector

[Smmenen]

I think a lot of why you believe it is so difficult to create something new and good is in fact because you are buying too much into what such and such says is "the best deck".  The current "top tier" of decks that you seem to hold on a pedestal are not without weaknesses.

A lot of times in deck building you'll hear someone say: "how is this deck better than x already existing tier 1 deck?".  IMO This is the wrong question to ask of a given deck.  The question really should be "what advantages does this deck offer that already existing tier 1 deck does not?".  It's a subtle difference, but the first statement implies a value judgement (because it uses the word "better") and that value judgement can be very discouraging to someone who is looking to innovate.

It's not THAT hard to create something new that is playable.  Once you have a deck that is playable, you can then metagame it appropriately and play it optimally.  If you can win a tournament with it, you now have a successful innovation.  If you're looking to prove whether or not a deck is good and can compete then I emplore you, please do not look to the talking heads on a web site for approval.  Tournament data should be  the ONLY acceptable proof for what is good.

For example, waSP an adept who plays in MN, has won several highly competitive tournaments using R/G beatz.  R/G BEATZ??!?!!?!! HUH???  Yes, even decks that are written off as "bad decks" by the elite of TMD (including myself) can win tourneys, repeatedly.  Given what i just said in the previous paragraph, what does that tell you both about the deck itself and the other "tier 1" decks he had to face in order to win?

I would tend to agree with this sentiment with one exception: Tog.  Tog has created a real baseline that other decks should be measured against.

Diceman's comments are potentially one of the most insightful views of Type One I have hear in a long time.

Steve

[Imzakhor]

I have been working on a Discard deck for over a year (closer to two full years, SIGH), and it has been fun the whole time... Until recently when I gave up on it (for now). Eventually I will write up a "beg-for-help" thread here to see if it can be saved.

I won the 2001 Origins tourney (championship?) with a UWbg Legends deck... Phelddagrif was my MVP. THAT deck was really good, but when I played in the GenCon 2003 tournies, I went .500 the whole weekend, and realized I had to reinnovate it to compete.

Point of all this? You don't have to play Tog to win, and win big. Or Mindslaver, or Welder, or anything else. Personal innovation is the key to not only keep winning, but also to keep having FUN.

I do like seeing all of the Slaver-Tog-etc. threads, as it helps me understand what I will see in a tourney field. I definitely don't read those to figure out what *I* should play.

Perhaps that is the difference. More people should try to view articles/tourney reports here as things they should SEE, and not things they should PLAY. Ya git meh?

[Machinus]

Hate is never going to be "good." The closest this concept can come to being successful is by employing "strategy superiority" in your local metagame (i.e, howling mine vs. necro like Flores talked about). This is a major factor in any tournament. There is no way that every deck can be equally represented at a tournament, and even if this were the case, the DCI would make sure that your control deck plays goblins rounds one and two, and your deck won't get at any attention. You must consider the more fundamental play envelope that has to be pushed in order to be competitive.

Type 1 IS slightly different from the other constructed formats because of cards whose power level can never be surpassed. This dramatically reduces the potential of new cards, because they must either outperform old cards at something already established, or do something new that is also powerful and desirable. Existing cards can also form a very powerful interaction with new cards (trix), which creates new possibilities. If a player is familiar with the card pool and understands the premises which R&D has designed cards on in the past, and how they do so now, it is not difficult to locate "good" cards for a "new" deck. Speaking from a technically absolute standpoint, the only "new" decks are not all that new in content, but are new in strategy. I would say that this is what changes more than in any other format, and more quickly. The strategy a player has when piloting his deck will determine how well it does. This sounds obvious, because obviously the better player will do better with a given deck, but I am not merely referring to player skill. I am talking about how a player approaches the game itself. Things like screwing up when your opp gets his 3 drain mana or holding back moxen, for whatever reason. A player can only formulate this strategy by being very familiar with the state of his metagame, by how and what the dominant players are doing and taking note of what rules they have to break in order to win. By considering how others are winning, one can decide how to "win better."

"New" decks that seem to be doing really well are not really new at all. Players have been trying to exploit workshop for years, and welder has been utilized with consistency really well in the past. Slavery does not do anything fundamentally new except form a new strategy for winning. It has to run newer cards to execute this, but it is really not a large change in deck content. It is a change in the way the game is played. There are some very obvious examples of this, like morphling -> doj, academy -> storm, and the emergence of indispensable interactions like brainstorm + fetchlands. These things are not major changes in deck construction, but rather strategy and familiarity with synergy. To come up with a "new" deck, or to create a new set of interactions which can compete with existing strategies, one must change the way they play the game.