Discussion: Teams and Type One

[PucktheCat]

JP: It doesn't behoove the shop owner or TO to get people buying cards and coming to tournaments?

[thorme]

The incentive to continuously innovate is to stay ahead of the competition. When you are already ahead and people can't take advantage of any groundwork being done, you turn into a lazy king of the hill, which cannot be good for the format.

Ok...I'll bite and address this point of Dr Sylvan's.  (Steve already responded to his first point).


Let me ask a question, if you are "already ahead", what exactly is your incentive to innovate?  Why should a successful individual who has worked for their efforts care one whit about some ambiguous notion of "the good of the format"?  It certainly wouldn't be a problem with the format if an individual stayed on top for a sustained period using the same deck...it would be the laziness or lack of innovation on the part of those trying to usurp him.

You claim they have an obligation to reveal the results of their hard work...for what?  So that they can make life harder for themselves and easier for others (who did not put in the effort or have the brilliant innovation)?

[combo_dude]

To be honest, if there IS vitally important tech played at important tournaments, you'd think that someone would remember it and blab about it on the boards.

Or, of course, if it's just deck design as far as numbers go (as in number of copies of cards played, rather than any game-breaking new cards), then that's achieved by testing. So we can get off our backsides and test it out for ourselves - that sort of thing doesn't require any particular inspiration.

Not playing tournaments myself, I only like to see the lists for testing and interest - if they want to keep them, then we shouldn't insist that they do.

[Triple_S]

It seems that the issue of decklist secrecy and teams is directly stemming from CCC and the lack of decklists from the top 8.  For specifics, it is the Tog deck from Smmenen and the 7/10 build from SliverKing.  In this thread its been stated that for accurate representation of the metagame the decklists should be divulged.  The winner of the Lotus, PTW, has written a masterful tournament report complete with decklist.  Further more, there are several posts which detail the composition of the field and the composition of top 8 (Tog, 7/10, Gay/r).  

For an accurate representation of the metagame, this is the information you need so you can gear towards future tournaments.  Additional information is a luxury, and if the TO decides against publishing decklists it is perogative.  It would seem that the "communities right to have the decklists" is more like "the lazy wanting to sponge off the efforts of others".

[Vegeta2711]

brilliant innovation

Haha. Oh that's just hilarious. I don't see how you can call 99% of the stuff people come up with innovative in the least, let alone brillant.

It would seem that the "communities right to have the decklists" is more like "the lazy wanting to sponge off the efforts of others".

I.E. Play a real format if you want this info.

[PucktheCat]

Additional information is a luxury, and if the TO decides against publishing decklists it is perogative.

That is certainly true.  There are good reasons to think that wouldn't be the correct choice for him though.

Let me ask a question, if you are "already ahead", what exactly is your incentive to innovate? Why should a successful individual who has worked for their efforts care one whit about some ambiguous notion of "the good of the format"?

That was exactly the good Doctor's point, I believe.  The rules, either literal rules or strong social expectations, need to provide for public decklists because otherwise there won't be any incentive to improve the format or innovate.  Consider the long Keeper-age of Vintage.  The top players were dominant with their deck of choice so there was no pressure to innovate.  No pressure to innovate led to a stagnant format for years and years that almost killed Vintage.  That stagnation was a result of a monopoly of tournament success from a shortage of cards (that is simplistic, but close).  Proxy tournaments have solved that issue and made T1 hugely successful.  Stagnation from secrecy wouldn't be any better though.

Leo

[thorme]

I don't see how you can call 99% of the stuff people come up with innovative in the least, let alone brillant.

I don't see how one could say that 99% of stuff is innovative either...and I certainly have never said it myself.

[thorme]

The rules, either literal rules or strong social expectations, need to provide for public decklists because otherwise there won't be any incentive to improve the format or innovate.

Leo

This seems to be an important point to you, but I just don't understand it.  How does lack of a specific decklist eliminate incentive?  If I know gay/r won a tourney, how am I only incented to improve my deck or innovate a new one if I know the exact decklist?  Sure - it might help me to tune to beat a specific version - but even without a decklist I am still driven to improve and innovate if I desire to win.

[Triple_S]

I fail to see how withholding decklists helps to stagnate the metagame.  If someone does their homework when preparing for a tournament, ie check out the mana drain and the tournament forum, then they should have a good grasp of what they should expect at an event.  Withholding decklists can give a team an advantage if they have some new or unexpected tech for a specific matchup.  The team earns this advantage by putting the work in to discover this edge on the field.

My advice would be to stop complaining so much about the lack of decklists and spend that time getting a good team together to discover your own tech.  That way you can be one of the elitist bastards people seem to love complaining so much about.

[PucktheCat]

I was just following the implications of thorme's statement.  If you don't agree that a player who is winning has little incentive to innovate or feeling of duty to the format you can certainly disagree, but your disagreement is with Dr. Sylvan and thorme.  If you agree that they have little incentive to innovate then you would be hard pressed to make the argument that secrecy doesn't at least move in the direction of stagnating the format.

Of course, if I spent the time testing I spend arguing about this stuff I would face two problems:

1.  I wouldn't have a job.  Posting on the internet creates the illusion I am working.
2.  I wouldn't get to argue.  That is the real problem.  What can I say?  I'm a product of a family full of lawyers and a liberal arts education.

Leo

Edit: thorme, as I say above, I am just following the implications of your statement.  

IF (1) being ahead reduces incentive for innovation:

Let me ask a question, if you are "already ahead", what exactly is your incentive to innovate?

AND (2) secrecy keeps you ahead (which I take to be an assumption of ever participant in this thread)
THEN (3) secrecy reduces innovation.

I am not trying to be flippant here.  This is actually where my statement came from.  I am not a dogmatist on deck secrecy at all.  I think there are a lot of good arguments on both sides.

[Vegeta2711]

I'm not sure if you missed the implication in my statement (it doesn't seem like you would) or if you just felt like saying the obvious extreme of the example. Either way, I'll break it down slightly further, nothing in the last year in Vintage has been 'brilliant' or even very innonvative unless you count the fact that we stole a lot of good decks from other formats.

[MarkPharaoh]

It's one thing to keep your secret tech under wraps before a tournament but to withold your decklist and still keep it a secret after the event is complete bullshit.  I'm so tired of hearing "blahblahblah, I worked hard for my tech and I don't want to tell others"... Just like with some people  simply not being able to buy/get power, others don't have the time to test and come up with tech of their own.  I know for me I live in a shitty T1 area where the closest competitive T1 for me is at GM's which is more then 2 hours away from here and the only way I can test is online over MWS.  Then throw in the fact that people aren't always on at the same time and live in different timezones then it becomes problematic to get much testing in at all.

The community mostly agreed on proxies to have it more competitive and give more people a chance, this is no different.  By letting people see your tech, you let people who don't have the time to test 10+ hours a week a chance at future events.  I don't know why you people are so afraid in letting other people know, you thought up tech to win that event, you can definately think up more tech and stay a step ahead of people who just copy and paste decklists with little playtesting.  Lets face it, if everyone witheld decklists, the format would fall flat on its face because besides a few teams/individuals, people wouldn't have the knowledge to compete in the field.

[Moxlotus]

I believe teams are really good. Numerous times Team GWS have told Brian (who has been winning workshops for a month in the midwest) that "dude-that cards sucks complete ass-take it out".  Or "Philip (me), do you ever play good cards in your decks? Take the crap out and put in this."  Or "Mat, if you ever mention about even testing Dustbowl in that deck we are stealing your power until you stop suggesting to play cards that suck flaccid penis."
More minds are definitely better than one.  I believe teams are especially important in building SBs-and using them correctly.  

About the whole secrecy thing.  Maybe my team is in the minority, but we would rather have a good challenge while attempting to win a workshop or a mox rather than boning a bunch of shitty players playing suboptimal decks.  It would not be a fun day to play against sui, WW, and Stompy on the way to a victory.  I do not drive 3+ hours there and 3 hours back to play against complete shit. I want to have a good competitive time.  Having fun time>winning piece of cardboard.  If I wanted to make money I'd be at work instead of a tournament.  Now playing against good players and winning is what I hope for every time I play in a tournament.  

Most of the players who will copy tech will be shitty players anyways.  Now I don't mind beating shitty players playing optimal decks.  It gives me, anyways, a sense of accomplishment that (poker ling) "dude, I totally out played him".  And if I lose then I realize what I did wrong because he either(assuming shitty player copying tech)
a. had the nut draw that I could do nothing about
b. I made a mistake

Not much I can do about situation A but I can improve upon situation B and further my chances of beating a good player playing optimal decks.

If nothing else I like to compare differences my team's decks with others.  How is the SB of PTW's build of Gay/r different from mine?  What is the creature base?  Do Shortbus's 7/10 split run FoW like us or do they prefer to go more balls out? How can I improve upon a successful deck a competant player/team has made?  

I definitely hate net decking, however I would encourage all of the people that do it to keep on doing it.  If you can't at least tweak a few cards then you are not that experienced with the deck and won't win.  Releasing tech, I honestly believes, hurts netdeckers more because their reaction is "omfg, Triple S played this it must be good, I'll build it and bring it to the tournament tomorrow!"  That player will lose horribly.

[Dr. Sylvan]

[...] In this thread its been stated that for accurate representation of the metagame the decklists should be divulged.  The winner of the Lotus, PTW, has written a masterful tournament report complete with decklist.  Further more, there are several posts which detail the composition of the field and the composition of top 8 (Tog, 7/10, Gay/r).  

For an accurate representation of the metagame, this is the information you need so you can gear towards future tournaments.  Additional information is a luxury, and if the TO decides against publishing decklists it is perogative.  It would seem that the "communities right to have the decklists" is more like "the lazy wanting to sponge off the efforts of others".

Leo has pretty much answered as I would to thorme's points about incentives, so I'll field this one.

There is a self-contradictory outlook on tech by the secrecy advocates. Either tech is an important advantage that helps win tournaments against unprepared opponents, or the tech is immaterial and secrecy does not hinder the other players' ability to metagame. You cannot have it both ways. If, by not having the lists of previous winners, Team n00b is more likely to lose than if they possessed those lists, then their playtesting has been hindered, and they were kept from pertinent information that would allow them to tune their decks. I think we can all agree that the tech does matter (hence that the issue exists at all), so results-secrecy does make accurate playtesting and metagaming impossible.

Also, I don't think anyone could accuse me of mooching my way to wins--I hardly play, let alone win. I'm one of the chumps who's paying for Marc's trophy collection when I do manage to show up to something. :p

[Triple_S]

To be blunt about it, the community is more likely to get LESS information than more information for the duration of the summer until after Gencon.  Why?  We want to win and it is more important than helping random joe in Podunk, KY right now.  That is my opinion, other members of TSB may not feel like that, but I feel confident we are on the same page.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Yeah, I figured that the argument wouldn't convince anyone who had already made up their mind--this is the internet after all; changing your mind isn't allowed. ;)

In the past, Toad and MaxxMatt have each sent me undisclosed decklists and they have still not been disclosed many weeks after being sent to me despite my feelings on the matter--in fact I still add them manually after Jeek runs his Perl script on the publicly known lists, so no one else sees them. Could the lists at least find their way into my totals this way?

It's not like I'm playing in most of these events (depending on whether SCG can use me, I might not even be playing in GenCon, and I certainly won't be at any top tables). No one would benefit except my pretty little percentages. Ironically, the CCC tournament looks like I won't be able to include it anyway--my email to CCGPrime has gone unanswered for several days, so even with the SB and Smmenen lists I would be missing too many lists to include it. This secret submission of lists to me would only be relevant for whatever other events lists are withheld at.

[Smmenen]

This is in reply to Dr. Sylvan's first post - I haven't had time to read any other replies in detail as of yet:

I rebut each argument, one  by one:

Arguments:

1) "False Analogy to the Pro Tour":
- "The PT is not an isolated event. Immediately following it are Grand Prix, PTQs, etc. Thousands of dollars on the line. At each stage in the process, decklists are released so that the metagame can be revitalized. They're not all kept in a vault and released when the next PT season rolls around; they're let out immediately. This is so that the end of the season can be as exciting as the beginning: tech must be refreshed for continual victory. Every shift in the metagame can be countered, but only if the results are known. A PTQ season would be pretty silly if only whispered rumors and archetype names detailed the results until after it didn't matter."

This is simply based upon false information.  PTQs are NOT Pro Tours.  The PRO TOUR - where TEAMS break the format, is almost entirely new metagames each time.  The difference between Onslaught Block with Scourge and without Scourge is illustrative.

Argument Two:
2) "continuous v. discontinuous"

I'm shocked you could even make such an argument.  If you think that last extended season *even remotely* resemlbed the year before, or the year before that, you are flat wrong.  Certainly tech evolves, but it happens in key bursts at a VERY few very important tournaments a year.  States is NOT a key tournament for t2 - recall that States was played in November the year Tog was printed and at the Masters that year, the PROS broke out Tog - something NONE of the States competitors did.  That's becuase the pro players don't play at states, for hte most part.

Type ONe is completely different from those formats becuase there is NO HUGe payout tournament, but tournaments of various importance.  Clearly Gencon has the most bragging rights.  Winning that is probably the most important goal of all.  But the SCG tournament has an AWESOME prize.  Winning that is very important as well.

Argument 3:
"What you meant to (or should have meant to) contend was 'rotating vs. non-rotating format', on the theory that in a format where continuity lasts forever, there should be greater secrecy because tech lasts forever. However, this is specious, too! Decks and cards rotate out of Type One in all but the legality of their play. You could make an argument that decks last longer, but there are decks in Extended that have been successful for years. Does that mean they should be secret? Clearly not."

This is terrible misconstrual of my point.  I never thought that tech should stay *permanently secret*.  After Gencon, I won't care becuase the metagame will have a huge shift.

You see, Type One is TERRIBLY unfocused.  Your quote of me about gencon goes to show you that there is really only one important tournament - the championship.  The top 8 lists for that will shape the metagame for the year afterward.

Argument 4: "(False Analogy 2: Capitalism)
Growing, productive capitalism requires dynamic interaction. No one argues that for reasons of 'encouraging corporate innovation' that companies shouldn't have accounting transparency that other companies can analyze to use their own tactics back at them. The details of a winning marketing campaign are plain as the billboard on your local highway and the reports being made to the public. The incentive to continuously innovate is to stay ahead of the competition. When you are already ahead and people can't take advantage of any groundwork being done, you turn into a lazy king of the hill, which cannot be good for the format."

I didn't mention captialism at all.  You inferred that on your own, and it had nothing to do with what I was saying.  My point was based upon economic theory about human behavior, not about any assumption about capitalism.  And being a libertarian doesn't give you greater ground to argue, as I have a degree in Economics, not to mention I'm heavy into the philosophy side of the field.  

The point I'm making is KEY.

The most important tenant of Economics, NOT Captialism, is that people respond to incentives.  It's that simple.  The point I was making was that conditions must be good for teams to work.  You completely ignored/misunderstood that central point becuase you think that the more important information is not the incentives that make teams work, but keeping as much information in the open as possible.  Your warped reasoning also leads you to the conclusion that "by obscuring what the metagame looks like you inhibit realistic testing by individuals on their own teams and encourage a "Magic Colony"-like inbred metagame syndrome. Magic is not based on objective mathematical answers that anyone should arrive at if they do enough work. A perfectly reasonable team can't just come up with the best decks automatically without any metagame input."  Obscuring a few decklists in a few tournaments does no such thing.  People who where there reported what won and by who.  The details are what is left out.  You seem to think that if a few people withhold decklists this summer, people will start playing Sligh and Parfait again.  People know what's going on, data will continue to flow, and your gross over-reaction undermines any validity your points might have.  

Argument 5:  Secrecy harms teams:

"Seriously. Withholding decklists is discouraging teams, not excouraging them. The financial incentives aren't going to make Pro teams for Type One, and attempting to keep anyone from doing accurate playtesting is a ridiculous double-blind move that will not help your own or other teams. How can anyone plan their card choices if they have little clue how well other pieces of tech are doing? Open competition 4L, results secrecy never ever ever."

This paragraph is so far off base, I need to carefully deconstruct it to expose the flaws.  

Your argumentation runs like this:
1) t1 will never have pro-level competitive teams
2) secrecy makes it more difficult for teams to work effectively
3) then no one can work effectively
4) teams are hurt by secrecy.

Your argument just doesn't follow.  

Frankly, your lack of knowledge and experience about the details of how tournaments operate undermines your whole argument.

Let me explain.  

1) When I build a deck, I NEVER metagame it.  I make my decisions based upon INHERENT synergy, not metagame choices.  The hidden assumption in your last argument is that metagame decisions are critical for proper deckbuilding.  This is true, but it is only partly true.  You don't design a deck based upon a metagame, you design a deck based upon objective strenght, and TWEAK it to beat a metagame.

2) Good players know what to expect.  
A number of factors and experience can lead good players to know what to expect.  If you are playing in a proxyless tournament, combine that with the sort of players that generally show up, the tastes that people have in the area, and you can metagame pretty effectively without ever having seen a top 8 list from that area in 6 months.  If I were going to a 5 proxy tournament in the NE, i would expect lots of Aggro-Control and Control, and very little Workshops and Combo.  I woudl expect some Food Chain and a bit of Dargon.  The five proxies slightly tilts the environment toward Aggr-control, the best decks you can build out of five proxies, and the penchant of people in that area is toward control, which weeds out non Dargon combo.  


And this is my complaint about type one right now.  THERE ARE TOO FEW NEW DECKS BEING INNOVATED.  There are so many potential decks out there - I want to see a new Dragon, new Stax, new broken fucking decks designed by teams who have the wherewithal to do it.  The metagame SUCKS.  There are too few innovations in the last few months and I HOPE that people actually bring some interseting shit to Gencon.  

Fish is not an interesting broken t1 deck.  And yet it is winning, repeatedly.  Things are NOT healthy right now.  Sure, the format is growing, but there is something wrong, and teams are needed to break through the malaise.

[Vegeta2711]

PTQs are NOT Pro Tours. The PRO TOUR - where TEAMS break the format

This I take issue with. A LOT of playtest groups and teams come togheter to try to make the best decks for PTQ's. I know I do and so do many other competive players, semi-pro's and old pro's looking to come back on the tour. Obviously these aren't the same teams you'll commonly see mentioned on Sideboard, unless they need to qualfiy 1 or 2 of their guys, but plenty of teams are around.

I'm shocked you could even make such an argument. If you think that last extended season *even remotely* resemlbed the year before, or the year before that, you are flat wrong.

Tog, RDW, Rock and U/G Madness all traveled over. Obviously the beginning of the season was overshadowed by sheer brokenness, but after the bannings, bam, back to square 1.

Also note, the Pro's got the first crack at the new cards in a 1.x enviroment before anyone else. So how much we would've known from all the PTQ players, had say... the PT come in the middle of the season, is unknown information. ^_^

BTW, the way everyone talks about Gencon... why don't we just take that next step and only release info @ Gencon and not for the rest of the year. I mean obviously that's what everyone wants and that's the only tourney that's worthy of having lists published right?  

[Smmenen]

That's a ridiculous question that took a statement I made, stretched it, and rephrased it to produce an absurd result.  

In terms of logic, just becuase a tournament result is the most important, doesn't mean that it is the only one we should look to.  

People who play in certain environments may want data that reflect that specific environment.  The Dulmen or Carta are good examples, among many.  To repeat, just becuase Gencon is the most importnat, doesn't mean that less important tournaments shouldn't have tournament data reported.

At this time I'll take a moment to re-emphasize a point I wanted ot make, but has gotten buried in the thread.

Teams are the best engine for innovation for the format.

The large scale tournament scene MUST be distinguished from the small scale, local tournament scene - or even mid-level tournaments.  

The large scale tournaments provide a) first class prizes, or b) first class pride.  This incentive drives individuals to do well in a more generalized, more powered metagame that is very different from their own local metagame.  It is this prize, and this prize alone that will stimulate GREAT NEW DECKS.  That is what keeps T1 not stagnant - NOT new tournament data with same old decks.  

Individuals can pursue these goals, but innonvative new decks come from multiple people working on the same problem.  Surprise is key to winning often, and team secrecy makes that work.

[Dr. Sylvan]

2) "continuous v. discontinuous" : I'm shocked you could even make such an argument.  If you think that last extended season *even remotely* resemlbed the year before, or the year before that, you are flat wrong.

Clearly, the double-round of bannings show this season to be a little odd, so I'm skipping PT Tinker and the pre-banning GP. But look at these results:

1. Trix
2. Oath
3. Reanimator
4. Reanimator
5. Trix
6. UGW Control
7. Three-Deuce
8. Secret Force

1. TurboOath
2. Mono-B Reanimator
3. Rock
4. UB Reanimator
5. Psychatog
6. Aluren
7. Angry Ghoul
8. Rock

1. Goblins with Living Death
2. Life
3. Aluren
4. Dancing Ghoul
5. Psychatog
6. Reanimator
7. Goblin Bidding
8. Dancing Ghoul

What I see, and this is certainly supported by the T8s I didn't bother listing, are clear themes of Reanimator variants, Oath (until banned), Rock, Psychatog, Aluren, and often a Sligh-esque aggro deck. Each of these being relevant for at least a couple of seasons, despite a rotation, whole blocks of new cards, and oodles of bannings. Extended probably has at least comparable amounts of deck continuity to Type One. "Flat wrong"? No.

Certainly tech evolves, but it happens in key bursts at a VERY few very important tournaments a year. [...] Type ONe is completely different from those formats becuase there is NO HUGe payout tournament, but tournaments of various importance.

You are treating Type One as if it does not obey the same rules as other formats. I see T1 as a scaled-down version of other formats, commensurate to our player base. Our Waterburys, Dulmens, and other prominent events are much like scaled-down pro events. They serve similar purposes, and form the foundations for metagame evolution just as their Premiere event cousins do.

Clearly Gencon has the most bragging rights.  Winning that is probably the most important goal of all.  But the SCG tournament has an AWESOME prize.  Winning that is very important as well.

This is terrible misconstrual of my point.  I never thought that tech should stay *permanently secret*.  After Gencon, I won't care becuase the metagame will have a huge shift.

The prizes are not wildly divergent between GenCon and any of the now-abundant Lotus tournies. You are inflating the importance of these tournaments, when in fact the same kind of logic could be applied to any Waterbury. (After January Waterbury, is there any doubt that many NE players picked up O-Stompy because of its success there? Is there any doubt that Marc's Lotus wins with Fish motivate players to keep using Standstill? I could go on.) Should secrecy be acceptable during each 'Waterbury/Dulmen season', too, waiting for the bimonthly revelation of a single T8?

This seems like the best time to mention an additional reason secrecy is a format impossibility: restriction policy. How can we know whether something needs action without lists? We can approximate based on whatever is publicly available, but this will not lead to objective recommendations. Let's say, for example, Team 1337 withholds its winning Hulk lists for months on end. Their secret tech is (this is a hypothetical; don't nitpick me) to use four Intuitions, because they have broken it right in half somehow. If these lists just keep winning and distorting the format without ever being released, it would be hard to make the right recommendation to the DCI because we're all looking at a list that doesn't center on that card, and the deck might be abusive for an unnecessary three months. You can call this farfetched, but I believe that it is a dangerous risk to take: policy requires information.

You see, Type One is TERRIBLY unfocused.  Your quote of me about gencon goes to show you that there is really only one important tournament - the championship.  The top 8 lists for that will shape the metagame for the year afterward.

I will clarify that your quote shows that there was only one metagame-capsizing tournament in 2003. This picture has clearly changed, which was in fact what you said in your opening post.

I didn't mention captialism at all.  You inferred that on your own, and it had nothing to do with what I was saying.  My point was based upon economic theory about human behavior, not about any assumption about capitalism.

In the phrase of the resident neofascist manbeast, "Nigga please!" You directly mentioned communism as a counterexample, stating that [capitalist self-interest-based] incentive structures are removed by releasing decklists after the tournament. I explained that capitalist incentive structures in no way require this and in the real world lack it. Discussing incentive structures without looking at real world capitalism is almost as implausible as format evolution without decklists.

And being a libertarian doesn't give you greater ground to argue, as I have a degree in Economics, not to mention I'm heavy into the philosophy side of the field.

Facetious. (I might add that you also took Josh's last, facetious comment seriously rather than answer the flesh of his reply. We even both had smilies after our jokes to try to make it obvious. Gotta lighten up, dude. :) )

The point I was making was that conditions must be good for teams to work.  You completely ignored/misunderstood that central point becuase you think that the more important information is not the incentives that make teams work, but keeping as much information in the open as possible.

No, I argued that by having results available for scrutiny, you eliminate some of the 'starting friction' for teams besides the originators. There are teams besides the Children of Azhrei, and their incentives to collective action matter just as much as preserving the positive incentives for the successful team.

Your warped reasoning also leads you to the conclusion that "by obscuring what the metagame looks like you inhibit realistic testing [..]"  Obscuring a few decklists in a few tournaments does no such thing.  People who where there reported what won and by who.  The details are what is left out.  You seem to think that if a few people withhold decklists this summer, people will start playing Sligh and Parfait again.  People know what's going on, data will continue to flow, and your gross over-reaction undermines any validity your points might have.

This particular over-reaction is only such because it is a straw man. I did not say people would suddenly turn stupid with a few missing lists, I argued that they would be inhibited from the (better) playtesting path that they would have taken if they had access to the withheld lists. If you can argue that the marginal gain of having a 5% different decklist secret is important, I can argue that this difference affects the playtesting of other teams. See my post above about secrecy advocates wanting it both ways.

Your argumentation runs like this:
1) t1 will never have pro-level competitive teams
2) secrecy makes it more difficult for teams to work effectively
3) then no one can work effectively
4) teams are hurt by secrecy.

Your argument just doesn't follow.

That paragraph was not an independent point; it was not a set of syllogisms proving each step, it was a collection of what I tried to show before it in the post.

[Omitting the metagaming-decks-is-trivial section due to the having it both ways argument aforementioned. Metagame rant omitted because it's pure opinion.]

I would like to conclude by saying, for the benefit of all, simply this.

[PucktheCat]

Obscuring a few decklists in a few tournaments does no such thing. People who where there reported what won and by who. The details are what is left out. You seem to think that if a few people withhold decklists this summer, people will start playing Sligh and Parfait again.

Steve, you use the word "few" no less than three times in those two sentances.  Do you think it would make a difference if it were more than a few?  The current incentive structure, if every player felt the way you did, would not result in a "few" secret decklists.

Leo

[Milton]

I personally am wondering why this is an argument.  To me this is pretty simple.

1) Teams are important, mostly in preparation for a tournament.

2) Free and accessable informaiton is important, mostly after a tournament.

You can't have one without the other.  Without teams, there is no innovation.  Without information, there can be no effective teams because they don't know how to prepare for the metagame.  This reminds me of 1997 all over again.  No teams, no information, no real metagame, just Keeper.

So, I would say that a team serves a vital playtesting and innovatin function.  Tournament results, such as the ones posted by Dr. Sylvan, serve an even more vital function.

My conculsion is simple.  Teams should expect privacy when they are innovating.  Requests for decklists that are still being developed can be ignored.  But once you take that deck to a tournament (which I regard as a public forum), you give-up your right to withold a deck-list and the right to secrecy.  If you win a tournament, or even place in the top eight, you OWE it to the format to disclose information.  Without this disclouse we can really have no effective teams anyway.  Right?

[Klep]

To be blunt about it, the community is more likely to get LESS information than more information for the duration of the summer until after Gencon.  Why?  We want to win and it is more important than helping random joe in Podunk, KY right now.  That is my opinion, other members of TSB may not feel like that, but I feel confident we are on the same page.

So you're saying that your team is more important than the format you created the team for.

You do realize that since the interests of your team and the format you created it for are in opposition, that continuing to put your team first will ultimately result in its raison d'etre being eliminated, right?

[Hi-Val]

I think the issue is this: these lists are not going to be witheld indefinitely. The people who created and tinkered with their secret decks want them to be unanticipated for the tournament season. After August, my guess is that you'll see a lot of decks published in a "what worked, what didn't?" way. This is all just temporary, much like how TOGIT and CMU keep their lists wrapped up until the last possible second. They are not capable of asking the TOs to withold decklists, but T1 players are. Thus, when there is the capability of doing it, it is done.

[Dr. Sylvan]

The prizes are not wildly divergent between GenCon and any of the now-abundant Lotus tournies. You are inflating the importance of these tournaments, when in fact the same kind of logic could be applied to any Waterbury. (After January Waterbury, is there any doubt that many NE players picked up O-Stompy because of its success there? Is there any doubt that Marc's Lotus wins with Fish motivate players to keep using Standstill? I could go on.) Should secrecy be acceptable during each 'Waterbury/Dulmen season', too, waiting for the bimonthly revelation of a single T8?

[Methuselahn]

To be blunt about it, the community is more likely to get LESS information than more information for the duration of the summer until after Gencon.  Why?  We want to win and it is more important than helping random joe in Podunk, KY right now.  That is my opinion, other members of TSB may not feel like that, but I feel confident we are on the same page.

So you're saying that your team is more important than the format you created the team for.

duh.  This goes beyond MtG into life in general.  People try to get ahead of others, be it fame or fortune.  If top players were paid money to innovate and release decklists, then you would have a completely different argument.

You do realize that since the interests of your team and the format you created it for are in opposition, that continuing to put your team first will ultimately result in its raison d'etre being eliminated, right?

Do you really think that witholding a decklist is going to kill off Vintage Magic?  I think it will survive somehow.  The ball is rolling and the format is growing.

On the flip side, I have to agree with Milton.  If you place well with a deck, the deck should be made public.  This ensures fair play and advancement of the local metagames especially.  

Back to original post.  I think Steve is really preaching to the choir here in saying that teams are a good thing.  I guess the tips and advice given are solid enough to get some people motivated.

[Hi-Val]

Sylv: Put your money where your mouth is and show me figures! I am not trying to be hostile or anything, but that claim looks just a little unsubstantiated. If you remember last year's GenCon, the prizes for even the low T8 were pretty much equal IIRC to most tournament's major payoffs. I seem to remember quite a lot of boxes going to Carl, possibly more than what a Lotus is worth.

Also, these big tournaments are once-a-year ordeals. Unlike Dulmen where nobody remembers who won it last month, these give the opportunity for fame in the community (everyone can name who won last year's Gencon, as well as ECC and CCC). If SCG put up P9 every other month, it wouldn't be as big of an issue. Instead, what we have is people witholding for a better chance at winning as well as a better chance of fame, both personal and team-wide (whatever stock you place in that is up to you).

[Dr. Sylvan]

"not wildly divergent" != "the same"

The point is that GenCon's financial importance is not more than a few times that of a multiple-Power Waterbury, and that trying to treat these tournaments as exceptions is going to lead to future arguments that other tournaments should have the same treatment. Nobody thinks things will come to a screeching halt if a few decklists aren't reported, but there is an undoubtable risk of a 'slippery slope'. If $1-2K is enough that three months of North American tournaments should be blacked out, then why isn't $500-1000? Is there a fine line somewhere that says this practice will remain unique to this part of the season? If the tech doesn't matter the rest of the time, then why does it matter now? There is a great deal more money on the line throughout the year than just GenCon, and I am distressed that, if a quarter of the whole year should be secret just for that, then secrecy will grow further and results will be widely unavailable.

[Addolorisi]

If people choose to withold decklists, that's their right. You can't really hold it against them for wanting to maximize their tournament performances. However, I think the only time that people legitimately have a reason to withold is when something like Phil's Intuition scenario occurs. If the busted tech is some new card, people are already going to figure it out.

Looking at a T8 decklist will never replace testing, but having that list available will benefit the people that actually do test, and the original creators will be one step ahead (i.e. the Dojo's "Decks to Beat" disclaimer if anyone remembers that far back).

As for teams, is there a way to begin creating them from the Drain? The reason for most posters here that aren't already on teams is because of the local game state AFAIK. Perhaps using TMD as a base to begin creating new teams will help further this idea, and help move the state of Vintage along. I mean, with a board dedicated to outdated decks, I don't see the problem with creating a board with emphasis on teams. Any thoughts on that?

[MarkPharaoh]

Am I the only one who thinks this is getting really pointless?  Lets face it, no one is going to change their minds on the issue...