1. Is the US metagame more competitive due to allowing of proxies and the higher availibility of cards or are we just measuring competitive incorrectly?
IMO trying to equate distant and diverse metagames is next to impossible. The differance between the Global, Regional, and Local metagame is extemely pronounced.
The Global metagame is the easest to predict. In a way this seems couterintuitive but the fact remains that it is. This is mostly because the Global metagame is almost purely hypothetical. By nature it is assumed that most players will be reasonably skilled and decks will be mostly optimal. The reasoning of card availability can be dismissed and decks are easily broken down into tiers. This would seem to be because on paper it's a relitively easy game to figure out.
The Regional metagame is a first step into reality. Regional metagames seem to be much more geared towards archtypes. For example, as a general rule the Europeans seem to play much more combo then the US. Likewise the East Coast runs heavier control and prison while the West Coast trends towards a more aggro style.
My first sence of this came some years back while living in Utah. At that time it was common to do very well with tuned "rogue" decks against the decks coming in from Nevada or Cali. However these decks just fell flat when played in other areas.
At the Regional level more focused info begins to filter in, # of proxies, real time test results that factor likely play skill, card choices and availability, etc. while still using alot of "it works on paper" logic still prevelent. Regional metagames trend with the Global metagame with some cool innovation thrown in as well as the occasional surprise.
The Local metagame is where reality takes the steering wheel. This is where actual player skill, deck choices etc. really count. It is also the place where "tier 1" decks fall to WW and Sui on occasion. In my observations this usually happens at one of two times,
1. A sudden shift in archtypes. Usually the new archtype being played is not quite optimized yet, and the players are still working on playing the deck. It's at times like this when consistant aggresive decks can win thru to the T8.
2. The Local metagame becomes so inbred with one or two decks that they are basicly built to beat each other and themselves. At times like this these decks haven't had to deal with alot of other types of threats and have cut cards to make room for answers to themselves.
These windows tend to very short, but when they appear you can rack up the wins with "loser" decks.
Too often it seems that threads get out of hand when posters are talking about metagames because there is usually no "compass" as to which one we're talking about. Local metagames tend to lean towards the Regional decks to beat, but are often totaly random.
2. Are one line posts saying card/deck x or y sucks indirectly discouraging inovation? This of course would indirectly lead to a more powerful metagame.
Now tell me, do you need more than one line to say Twiddle is bad? Or do you need to write a full length discertation?
In my opinion saying a card is bad is a very constructive attitude - constructive in the sense of reducing scrubiness in the metagame.
Second, "innovation" is a buzzword people use to cover the "I'm gonna prove myself a genius deckbuilder or die trying" mentality.
Yes and no. Again it depends on what metgame your talking about. On a Global scale, card A, isn't worth the cardboard it's printed on. Regionaly it has been considered and dismissed. Locally, card A is uber tech!
The first thing I thought of when I saw this question was Matt Place needing to be payed to play Stasis in the middle of Black Summer, because it sucked so bad. Who knew??!!
I think alot of the time people who don't understand that their local store is a microcosom end up getting the one liners. Of course at Danny's Cards and Diner they'll trade you 3 FoW and 1 DoJ for your 1 Savannah Lions cause the cats rule down there in the bayou.
