[Discussion] Addressing Playskill in Vintage

[Rayearth]

I see a lot of people making the same claims about Type 1 and Type 2, switching their rationales around to fit--Type 1 is 'more skillful' because it has more cards, Type 2 is 'more skillful' because the cards change more, etc.

It's certainly true that in Type 1, there is a larger total card pool which makes for more possible interactions.  But is a pilot of a Type 1 deck really concerned with ALL those cards?  Most likely not; he knows what he should be looking out for, in a general sense, from deck X or Y.  This is largely in part thanks to the Internet, free distributor of information.  And, not too surprisingly, this is very much the same in the Type 2 environment; you have dominant decks that people talk about (Fires, from the past, Rebels, Wake, Psychatog, etc.) and you have the people who try to build decks that beat -those- decks.

But I don't think Ben Bleiweiss was addressing the issue of deckbuilding.  He was in fact talking about -play- skills, and those differ largely from deck -building- skills.  To say that Type 1 inherently contains more 'complex' situations than Type 2 is an outright lie, borne of ignorance--I don't think that, say, every deck in Type 1 has more complexity than, say, a Goblin Bidding deck that's trying to combo you out.  That requires an intricate knowledge of the stack.  And of course there are decks in Type 1 that require just as intricate planning and execution.

And here I must agree--I would say that the average Type 2 player has a better basic understanding of the game than the average Type 1 player.  Type 1 players have (often) several disadvantages--either their cards may not do what they read on the card (as mentioned before) or they struggle with having old rules in their heads (something I've run into several times personally), or this or that.  I found (when I was still able to convieniently play Magic) that the Type 2 players just understood the flow of the game better--and that's something that I think carries over to Type 1, rather than the other way around.

I don't say this as a rabid Type 2 player, either--I actually haven't been in the game competitively since the rotation, I simply don't have the money to get back in and get a good working deck together.[/u]

[walkingdude]

My personal experience is that good type one players are better than 2nd tier type two players at playing the types of decks they are used to but not at other decks. By second tier I don’t mean scrubs I mean the sort of people who get to elimination rounds of PTQs or even the people who go actually get to pro tours but don’t make the cut to top 64.

At neutral ground, which has a fairly sizable type two pro/semi pro community, when tog was the best deck in type 2, a lot of the type one players decided that the deck was cool enough and close enough in power level to their beloved T1 control decks that’s it was worth trying type 2. So a lot of us built tog and started playing in T2 events. And we won a lot of matches, even against the less experienced pros and people who had qualled for Nats on rating. In fact most of my current constructed rating comes from the massive points gains I got by beating some of those people.

It was a good time; we all were playing new formats. But the catch was the success didn’t carry over when the best decks changed. In block, when the decks were mono black control without counters and UG aggro we floundered. The type two guys shifted decks and the same people who had been getting to finals with tog got to finals with UG, but the type one community couldn’t make the switch. When the meta wasn’t control dominated anymore we couldn’t hack it and managed to produce only a few top 8s between us and eventually just went back to playing type one.

My experience, and this may be different in other areas, is that type one people know a few decks strategies obsessively well and not much about anything else. So, the NG crowd knew control mirrors, but not a thing about creature combat. I suspect that as people play pet decks less and less and start to change decks with the metagame this trend may change and the top type 1 people may catch up with the tier 2 type 2 people. Realistically we will never catch the tier one people because those guys spend far more time testing then we could ever hope to if we want to hold down real jobs.

[FreddieNDB]

I personaly believe that there is far more play skill involved in T1 generally than in T2. The simplicity of T2 decks is quite evident versus most T1 decks. Most T2 decks I have experience with (unfortunetly this does not include Raffinity or Bidding) basically just go on autopilot. It's a simple mana curve and you play spells according to that curve and whats in your hand. If anything I noticed that you try to ignore you opponent moreso in T2 then in T1.

T1 involves even more skills of geussing an opponents hand, or taking into account a possible card in their hand (because of the brokeness of T1 even a one card hand can make you think twice). Moreover, you have to watchout for cards not just in hand, but in the library (your's and your opponents) in the graveyard and sometimes even RFG (wishes).

I don't think you can hand any T1 deck to any T2 player who isn't familiar with the format at least slightly and see them just win, especially if you give them a deck like keeper. However if it were reversed I can see that happen.

If you want to compare pro T2 players to pro T1 players you have to stop right there. There are no pro T1 players. It's kinda unfair to compare the better players of T1 (who usually have jobs and only spend their free-time on T1) to pro players who invest a huge amount of time in play testing a few decks.

Furthermore, if you want to compare T1 playskill to T2 playskill you cna;t really. As others previously have stated, T1 and t2 play too differently to really be incorporated into eachotheror compared. T1 really focuses on the main phase and you opponents main phase, while T2 focuses a lot on the combat phase.

[jpmeyer]

I've gotta agree more with Will.  I've handed UG Madness to people and they've just started playing it on autopilot and done things like discarding a Mox to Aquamoeba because they've got a Null Rod in play, only to scoop when Goblin Welder switches the two.  Whether this is a symptom of "pet decks" or something else I'm not sure of, but it's quite common from what I've seen.

Also, like I said above, if you can't see the effect of not maximizing the effects of your cards, it's harder to improve your skill.  It's a lot easier to see this if you play a lot of Limited, because it's harder to set up say, an Oblivion Stone than it is to set up a Yawgmoth's Will or Mind Twist.

[Jakedasnake]

Having played a bunch of both formats, including many against Paradigm, I can honestly say that the two formats require equal amounts of skill, but in different areas.

For one thing, Type 1 has that broken factor, and a lot of playskill stems from the ability to adapt to broken plays. It definitely takes a lot of skill to win after a resolved Yawg's Will, for example, especially when that can almost always mean game over.

Another example, when playing Keeper, would be saving your counters for the spells that'd have the biggest effect on your position. It's hard to tell, and you need to know ratios and play style for this to work effectively. It's impossible to just blindly make the correct decision when deciding what to Mana Drain, as you need to know the optimal play a whole turn ahead, and excluding what you'd draw.

Type 2 players don't have to do this, but that's not to say they don't require playskill. Type 2 players play against better opponents, as many of the 'good' players play Type 2 for the larger payout. Besides the games against the better, on average, opponents, one'd have to know the ins and outs of each matchup. In Type 2, more than any other format, lots of little things can happen. The card pool is smaller, but that means that more cards are playable, so one has to be ready for surprises. For example, the affinity builds very quite a bit. In fact, in Regionals, when Jonah and I both Top 8'd, I'd fought through 3 mirrors, each build strikingly different.  The build I played was 4 color, but I'd played 2 color with strong defense against arti hate, 3 color, and a build that sort of combined both. However, it's important to know the ins and outs of Type 2 especially, because so many cards are viable.

So, all in all, I believe that both formats require a lot of skill, but in different areas.

[dad]

I stopped playing Type 2 when Invasion came out.  It was for the very mundane reason that I moved to a Type 1 town.  I like magic, so the format doesn't matter a whole lot to me.  I won some power and enjoyed it.  Two weeks ago, despite not even knowing the text of several cards, I won a small Type 2 tourney with a borrowed Tooth and Nail deck.  I said this to point out a few things.  

1.  Overall, better players win, regardless of their predominant format, because they usually know the rules and have a little more skill.  

2.  The better Type 2 players are likely to be better than the better Type 1 players (and their worse players are poorer) in large part because their player pool is so much larger.  For example, if we all had a Type 1 state tournament available, how many states would field a quality top 16?  I live in South Carolina, a small state, where over 150 showed up for states.  We would be lucky to get 1/3 of that for a similar Type 1 event.

3.  As for innovation, I see a lot of improvement in Type 1 in the past year.  Many here were denigrated as elitist, but I have seen people like JP and Smmenen (sp?) put their reputation on the line by taking chances.  Also, many of the naysayers are either honest and accurate or nincompoops (does anyone else still use this word?) that spew what they think is the company line.

The best way for any of us to honestly answer the question regarding the quality of Type 1 playskill vs. Type 2 is to play both with equal vigor (if you can't, don't or won't, then I am not sure you have a qualified opinion on the subject anyway).  Only then will will you be able to make a truly informed decision.

[Dozer]

Another factor is the duration of decks with their owners. Most T1 players I know have a pet deck they have been playing in tournaments and updating for years. If you find a T2 player who does that, he's probably cheating. T1 players are so intricately familiar with "their" deck that they can write decklists by heart, knowing not only the cards but the story how they came by each single one as well. With these decks, the players are (often, not always) almost perfect. Give them a different deck, and they will blunder as much as anyone.

I think this is what distinguishes really good T1 players from merely well-doing T1 players: Only a small percentage can pick up a different deck than the one they learned with, practice it for a weekend and do well with it. This is especially true for a switch between combo and control, since the playstyle is so radically different.
This is different to T2 players, who need more generalized playskills to be able to change decks every so often, because new cards rotate in, old cards rotate out, and decks evolve over a very short time. Of course, there are T2 players who can't make the switch, but walkingdude has ilustrated this beautifully in his post.

Another, minor thing: T1 tournaments have more people who "just came by and wanted to play". The pressure to be up-to-date is not as high, which I would (consenting with others) blaim on T1 being a less competitive format in the sense of winnings and ratings gain. I have met T1 players in the last year who didn't even know about the 6th Edition rules change. And these players win mostly because of card power.

Basically, T1 players often don't know combat rules, and (often at the lower tables) have less general rules knowledge than T2 players. Also, I feel that among the T1 players there are less rules lawyers than in T2, but that may be a skewed perspective.

Dozer

[Smmenen]

I know my own personal skill weakness is combat math.  I am at a disadvantage not just becuase it takes me so long to calculate the various combatinations of blocks and damage, but also becuase it takes me so long to do just that, it takes me longer to figure in "tricks".  

T1 certain taps into areas of the rules that are rarely invoked in Limited and Type Two - but do come up in Extended.  

Steve

[jpmeyer]

Another way that playing Limited helps your Type 1 game:

"Type 1 is harder because your opponent could play some card that you just didn't expect"

[graedus]

IMO, Vintage is more about deckbuilding and aiming at running on autopilot than it is about player skill. All most decks do is find an engine and then push it as fast as possible and try to ignore the opponent.


Which is the right strategy, but it doesn't make for in-game skills like Limited does.

Following Az's example, I couldn't agree more with what JP added.

if you can't see the effect of not maximizing the effects of your cards, it's harder to improve your skill. It's a lot easier to see this if you play a lot of Limited, because it's harder to set up

The last time I played T2 seriously was during Invasion block and after two sabbathical blocks.  I realized I was getting rusty with so much magic theory that I decided to blow off the dust and attend the Mirrodin prerelease. I didn't even cared to read the spoliers, just wanted to see how well my playing skills standed at that point.

I had never before attended an event here at Mexico City before, so I faced a completely random environment in that sense. After reviewing the cards I received, I built a R/G beatdown deck with enough artifact hate and finished unbeated in the top 8. I relized I was facing good players starting the second round, so I played carefully, holding always some burn or artifact hate available, and never overestimating my opponent.

Since you never know what to expect from your opponents at limited, and the card pools are more restricted, you get used to find solutions with what you have available, innovate and find alternatives during gameplay.  This is why I consider that Vintage players that both play limited and seriously construct budget decks have an edge in overall skill over the other players.

edits in bold

[Raven Fire]

Most T2 decks I have experience with (unfortunetly this does not include Raffinity or Bidding)

So you're essentially telling us you have almost no experience with the most played decks in the format.  That's like telling us you have experience in T1, just not with Tog or Slaver decks...

[FreddieNDB]

Most T2 decks I have experience with (unfortunetly this does not include Raffinity or Bidding)

So you're essentially telling us you have almost no experience with the most played decks in the format.  That's like telling us you have experience in T1, just not with Tog or Slaver decks...

If you used a little more common sense you would think back to when Raffinity and Bidding was created which happens to be only a couple months ago. I am a T1 player who stopped playing T2 soon after Mirrodin came out (to focus more on T1 since I love the format so much) so I never picked up a Raffinity or bidding deck. The whole reason I stated that is because of the complexities of the combat phase with these decks which I am unsure of. However, I don't think that not knowing a few extremely broken decks really makes that much of a difference in the general picture.

On topic: I think we cannot really compare the two different formats because of the huge difference in the areas skills need to be developed in.

[SpencerForHire]

Alot of people are saying that we build the decks then leave em on auto pilot and don't have to do anything beyond that so we don't have nearly as much skill.
Arguement 1
90% of the game has got to be building the right deck for the right metagame then giving it additional meta-tuning so it can ACTUALLY win there.  This takes a large amount of skill because you have to know what's important from whats not both in the deck and versus the other decks that might give you trouble.  It takes alot of work and you have to always give up something to take on something else in relation to the matchups you face.  In playing say, Food Chain Goblins, you must know what goblins are important in a match versus what must be takin out so you can run cards like Null Rod, Chalice of the Void, or ReB.  It would be foolish in a matchup versus a very controlling deck to side out Goblin Lackeys to play REB.  I have seen it, and that is a case of skill and game knowledge that some people just don't have.

Arguement 2
I have seen many type 2 players say that all type 1 is about is net decking.  And the funny part is a I always get it from the Raffinity player, or the Goblin Bidding player or the Tooth and Nail player.  Never from the person running a random monoblack control deck that isn't considered competitive to the least bit.  Every format has it's share of popular decks, it takes a great amount of skill NOT to copy them down, but to fine tune them to do exactly what YOU want them to do.  I have seen ravager and I have seen good ravager.  The difference is how the player runs it, what that player wants it to do and how they handle other decks.  

Overall all players not based on type or deck they play are of different skill level.  Argueably T1 DOES have the least skilled players of any format.  The reasoning for this is 1) We have the lowest representation of any format.  2) Any new people getting in are probably playing with any cards that they can get rather than just the newest things.  This technically qualifies them as a T1 player because well, they just play with everything and not care, and these people not to say they are bad, but just don't have a grasp on the game yet and as such they would obviously be very low on the skill chain say they were to play against say JP or someone etc..  But what it comes down to is the individual, there are so many different cases all over the world that it would be impossible to find out which format has the most skill.  It's all relative.  For working with such a small pool T2 has more skill.  With working with such a large card pool T1 has more skill.  For playing with such a medium sized card pool T1.X has more skill.  It's very relative on the location the cards at hand, the play experience and every other factor down to what hour of the day it is how much skill that player has.