Opinions: Format Diagnosis

[thorme]

Recently, I've seen many posts in a variety of threads that refer to the "health of the format".  I'd like to take a bit of time to determine what folks think a "healthy" format looks like.

What is this elusive concept of format health?  Is a format healthy when sheer numbers show that more people are playing it?  Can you diagnose format health by looking at breakdowns of Top 8 decks?



Here are 3 questions I'd like to hear your opinions on:

1.  How many decks capable of winning a good-sized tournament should exist in a "healthy" format?

- Note, please do not just list a number, but some rationale.  If your answer is 2 for instance, let us know why you feel that a variety of top decks is unhealthy.

2.  Ideally, how defined is the metagame in a "healthy" format?

- Do you consider a format healthy when every player knows the exact decks that will show up and in what percentages?  Why?

3.  How to you propose to measure a "healthy" format?

- Comparing a healthy to non-healthy format, what differences would you expect?  Number of players?  Wizard's revenue?  Number of Top 8 archetypes?  How much fun folks seem to be having?  Prize support?  etc.



Although I've used the more encompassing term "format", let's confine our discussion to Type 1 please.  Also, try to be realistic (avoid replies like "The format would be healthy if Type 1 had a $1,000,000 Pro Tour, etc)

[Ric_Flair]

1. How many decks capable of winning a good-sized tournament should exist in a "healthy" format?

See, the way I look at it there is a difference between a "balanced" format and a "healthy" format.   A balanced format is the goal, the near perfect format.  Whereas a healthy format is merely something without a degenerate deck or decks.  That is, a healthy format is the bare minimum playable format.  As such here is my opinion on the carrying capacity of each.

In a balanced format, it would be ideal if each of the major archetypes in Steve's five point scheme were represented.  So five decks.  Any more and we are simply seeing a divergence of decklists because of suboptimal builds.  So five.

In a healthy format any number higher than 1 is okay.  That said, at least three is necessary to get rid of the Spy v. Spy feel which is just really annoying.  So 3.  

2. Ideally, how defined is the metagame in a "healthy" format?

A healthy format is when there is no degenerate deck.  A balanced format is when multiple strategies when optimized and played reasonably well have an equal chance of winning.  Note that this means that the combo deck, which is usually more skill intensive, requires more skill to use equally well than say an aggro deck.

3. How to you propose to measure a "healthy" format?

Since this is a hobby and entertainment is the name of the game then it should be when people are having fun.  But this means the most fun for the greatest number.  Since tournaments have proven to be the lifeblood of Magic this means that more Spike like environments are the measure of health.  As such a serious format in which there is no one degenerate deck is healthy.  A serious format in which there are multiple viable strategies is balanced.

Good topic.

[Dr. Sylvan]

1.  How many decks capable of winning a good-sized tournament should exist in a "healthy" format?

The bare minimum for health is three strong decks, but I think a fourth brings things from borderline unhealthiness to actual health. I think Tony and I have said enough bad things about two-sided metas that this much should be obvious. I agree with Tony that there is a difference between 'healthy' and 'balanced'. A balanced metagame is where each deck strategy/archetype has a viable optimized form, but unlike Tony I do not think there are only five points here. For instance I don't think it's "suboptimal" for there to be two or three combo decks considered viable, because they are quite different subtypes of "combo". I would say that this version of 'balanced' has room for about ten decks.

I'm not sure if it's hypothetically possible for there to be a B&R-actionable card in a meta as diverse as the one I described above, but if it is, I'll suggest that there must also not be any cards which individually distort/dominate the format for it to be either healthy or balanced.

2.  Ideally, how defined is the metagame in a "healthy" format?

Since there is no rotation in Type One, the metagame's changes should as a general rule be traceable to the influence of new cards and B&R changes. Because there is such a body of predefined metagame knowledge and only a slow impact from these two sources of change, Type One tournaments should be about 80% predictable (if it's possible to quantify such a thing) in most cases.

3.  How to you propose to measure a "healthy" format?

Healthy formats are fun and interesting. To me, if the format is 'balanced' in archetype terms, it's 'balanced' in terms of how interesting it is, too. So, um, I propose to measure format health through Dr. Sylvan metagame analysis articles. I trust that guy's opinion; he seems to have a feel for when something needs attention. ;)

[Mixing Mike]

1. How many decks capable of winning a good-sized tournament should exist in a "healthy" format?

5-6 decks should exist in a healthy format. This allows for the best tournaments, by playing verses a variety of decks through out the day, possibly never seeing the same deck twice. With such a large card pool, one could assume that reaching a number of 5-6 decks is very possible. That way, you can never be fully prepared for any one or two other decks. That forces you to focus your sideboard and MD, and making each game based more on play skill than just 'play ____card____ and win'.

2. Ideally, how defined is the metagame in a "healthy" format?

Ideally, I'll have to say that if you can't see it coming, then it's not healthy. When there's any number of decks at the top, you should be able to prepare for them, and therefore predict what you'll see. You can usually base the higher tables of any given tournament by following Top 8 results, and by watching what people have been playing in the weeks beforehand. You can also base it on geography (New England = heavy control, Europe = aggro/combo).

3. How to you propose to measure a "healthy" format?

By following Top 8 Results. If you keep seeing one or two deck overflowing Top 8's, then something needs to change. Either make a new deck, or change the B&R List.

[Swanky]

1. How many decks capable of winning a good-sized tournament should exist in a "healthy" format?
I would say that three, as Schoolhouse Rock is so quick to remind us, is the magic number.  Though there is a more convoluted achetype model in contemporary Magic, there should be a main representative from each "extreme" (Aggro, Control, Combo) capable of consistent success.  The remainder of the metagame in a hypothetical "healthy format" would be hybrid decks designed to combat specific hegemonies (much like Fish's ability to deal with Control notably well, while lacking "game" against aggressive builds).  Ideally, a budget deck or two would be viable, which would aid in increasing tournament turn-out, and foster the player base.

2. Ideally, how defined is the metagame in a "healthy" format?

If one can construct a plausible deck gauntlet consisting of 3+x decks ("x" being the number of hybrid decks commonly used to combat an established metagame hegemony) against which one could pit a deck to test viability, a metagame is healthy.  If one deck dominates via "unfair broken-ness" (which sounds redundant, but truly isn't), a metagame may then fall from grace.  

3. How to you propose to measure a "healthy" format?

A healthy metagame can be defined through player satisfaction.  My psychologist instincts want to blurt out the knee-jerk reaction of "Issue a survey!", but the sample size would have to be fairly large to elicit truly significant results (don't believe the n=30 principle, friends!).  Though not readily quantifiable, through deductive intuition dissatisfaction can be assertained.  Various quantifiable factors can be measured to create a universal measure (change in player population, tournament attendance, player reactions to cards of interest, etc); it's not impossible.

[WildWillieWonderboy]

Those of you not interested in a fairly lengthy and involved discussion of the question presented should probably drag the scroll bar to the next post.

1. How many decks capable of winning a good-sized tournament should exist in a "healthy" format?
As many as possible. Currently, I concur with Ric, each major archetype having a contender would be healthy.

2. Ideally, how defined is the metagame in a "healthy" format?
Definition as far as what beats what is always present, regardless of the health of the format. I feel that the format's abandonment of the classic paper-rock-scissors scheme for a more complex one is a sign of good things. As such, I feel that the intricacy of definition is the symptom of a healthy format.

3. How do you propose to measure a "healthy" format?
A format's health should be measured by the percent change in decklists, representing innovation. (you would need to find some method of distinguishing between haphazard changes and actual innovation, probably by no. wins)

abs[(each card in accepted build - each card in new build with the same name)/60]x100

I would have to agree with the previous posts in that "healthy" is anywhere from barely playable (or pokémon) to perfect. As such, one's opinion of healthiness is predetermined by one's idea of perfection.

My definition of perfection with respect to the questions is as follows:

1. How many decks capable of winning a good-sized tournament should exist in a "healthy" format?
Infinite

2. Ideally, how defined is the metagame in a "healthy" format?
There would be epitomes of the archetypes, and were Doc Sylvan to do a correlation study in the cards that appeared together so as to average in all of the less polar specimens, we would then find a loose average of what is being played. It would also make all that number crunching alot more worthwhile, not that it isn't valuable right now (please don't ban me!). In short it would be definable, but there would be infinite degrees as far as how a deck fits into these archetypes. You would be able to plot a function of the deck.

3. How do you propose to measure a "healthy" format?
The Ideal format would be infinite in all qualities, so you wouldn't be able to measure it. Also, since I hate capitalism, WotC revenue would have nothing to do with it.

The explanation, for those of you who care to view it:
http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=299218#299218

[Azhrei]

Healty and balanced formats are a myth. In any format, there has always been pretty much one top deck and then you have people who play it, play against it, and the who fall by the wayside trying to be "original".  Yes, blah blah blah playstyle and blah blah blah personal preference, but there's still always only two decks, and the hate deck doesn't win. If there are more decks than that, the format hasn't been fully explored.

So, I'd say that a healthy environment is one in which there is only one *truly* viable deck, because that means that people are testing enough.

[wonkey_donkey]

Healty and balanced formats are a myth. In any format, there has always been pretty much one top deck and then you have people who play it, play against it, and the who fall by the wayside trying to be "original".  Yes, blah blah blah playstyle and blah blah blah personal preference, but there's still always only two decks, and the hate deck doesn't win. If there are more decks than that, the format hasn't been fully explored.

So, I'd say that a healthy environment is one in which there is only one *truly* viable deck, because that means that people are testing enough.

I agree with your viewpoint in so far as one deck should be both theoretically and practically (ceteris paribus) the best deck. However, I don't think that there can every be only one viable deck, as this seems to ignore the issue of luck. Much as many would like to be rid of this disease, as it were, this is integral to the game and even more so to this format. Before I get eaten for saying this, I do not think that Type 1 is any less skill-intensive a format than others, but there is always the random factors in decks that are brought out by the restricted list.* The games where people are truly tested is when neither player has a definite advantage from the word go - much like a certain other board game using black and white pieces who's name I believe has been censored. Type 1 is second to no format in this respect, but this luck means that there can never be only one viable deck; more that there can only be one best deck with others being viable behind it whilst scrapping for second place.

A healthy format, in my view, is one where everyone can play the game and get what they want out of it - winning for some, 'playing the game for itself' for others, and whining about luck for yet others. At the moment, people can play to win, they can build new decks with limited success and so forth; hence we have a healthy format.

Interesting thread - everything in it's going to be utterly subjective and usually completely flawed, but I spose that's what the intarweb and message boards are for.

Tom

*The naive but partly accurate view would say that this is the main reason that type 1 has not got a slot on the Pro Tour - the decks can only test the pro's so far, as every now and then (more so than other formats by some distance) people will 'just win' regardless of the other player. A lucky player is more likely to win the money up for grabs in Type 1 than other formats. The more cynical view would say that there's less profit in Type 1 for wizards, but naturally wizards are a benevolent body that acts in the interest of everyone because it is in the players' interest, with no regard for profits. Naturally.

[twn_domn]

Healthy?  There's no such thing.

To have a "healthy" format, that's the same as saying:  Under US Consititution, the people have "equal" oppertunity.  The fact is: people don't have equal oppertunity.  There're always budget players, and there are always more budget/degenerate decks than power decks.  

I would argue that people just adapt and survive.  As long as there are enough people to start a tournament, a tournament that's composed of mostly budget players is as "healthy" as a tournament that's composed of power players.  A tournament that's composed of mostly 1 or 2 types is as healthy as a tournament that's composed of 4 or 5 types.  To call a "form" or a "scheme" that defines what's healthy, you are just putting your own little preference/view of the world upon other people.

[Ric_Flair]

SIDE NOTE:

Under US Consititution, the people have "equal" oppertunity.

No where in the Constitution does it say that people have equal opportunity.  In fact in no official document in the US government do people have equal opportunity.  People have EQUAL PROTECTION from discrimination by the government under the 14th Amendment, but that is vastly different than equal opportunity.  Equal opportunity would mean that we have equal rights to everything, which is not the case.  Equal protection on the other hand means we have a much more limited right--freedom from unfair discrimination.  Fair discrimination is certainly permissible in our scheme of government and would not, by definition, be permissible in a scheme of equal opportunity.

END SIDE NOTE.

As far as budget is concerned I think the format is more budget aware than ever with Fish, Gay/r, and U/G Madness all being competitive.  Health here is an absolute term.  It is like asking for the fastest cars, but disqualifying expensive ones.  The point is if a card is available and playable it should be played.  Budget has nothing to do with health.  It may have something to do with accessibility, but that is an issue that is only tangentially related to the metagame, which is what the health inquiry is all about.

[WildWillieWonderboy]

Healthy?  There's no such thing...

 To call a "form" or a "scheme" that defines what's healthy, you are just putting your own little preference/view of the world upon other people.

That's why the first word in the thread title is "opinions." No one who posted here is wrong or right, the point of writing an answer to these questions is not to change others views, but to explore them and then evaluate your own opinions as you write. Thus, the point is to change your own views.

Also, I feel that the one deck idea is something of a type 2 sentiment. At infinite proxie tournaments everyone shows up with a different deck. Sure, there's a favorite, but the field is still exceptionally diverse and I don't think that anyone's mindset was to play an inferior deck for whatever reason. The value of any given deck is directly related to the metagame it's played in. And yes, good players do win more.

[defector]

1. How many decks capable of winning a good-sized tournament should exist in a "healthy" format?
 I think the number is harder to come up with than the ratioanale.  The correct number is whatever number means that sidebaording reuires good metagming, when recipe sidboards rule the day the format is unhealthy in my opinion.  I would like to say 6-10 decks with variety probably showing up the most in aggro/aggor-control and combo decks.  I want at least five.

2.Ideally, how defined is the metagame in a "healthy" format?  I think healthy means that you shouldn't play the same deck twice in a six round swiss, or at least no more than twice.  Also, the top 8 should reflect the multiple strategies available in magic.  Also, a really healthy metagame should occasioanlly show a well designed, metagame "rogue" deck occasionally making top 8, in other words the metagme should allow for the possibility of new archetypes.

3.How do you propose to measure a "healthy" format?  Read Sylvan, if we ever have a quarter defined by 1-3 decks or 1-3 decks and an "answer" deck than we know that we have a problem.

excellent thread.
defector

[xrizzo]

1. How many decks capable of winning a good-sized tournament should exist in a "healthy" format?

At least 5.  Cards from all archtypes are so powerful now, that just about any type of deck can win a 50 person tourney - even rogue decks.

2. Ideally, how defined is the metagame in a "healthy" format?

It is defined well enough that you generally know the types of cards being played in different decks, but the metagame does not need to be cookie cutter internet decks.

3. How to you propose to measure a "healthy" format?

I would measure a healthy metagame based on the number of powered players divided by the number of unpowered players.  If this ratio is near 1, then I think you have a good diversity of decks.  I would also look at the decks which make top 8 -- if this contains any deck more than 2 times, then I would say the metagame is not healthy.

These are simple answers, but when I think about healthy metagames, this is what springs to mind.

[Mixing Mike]

There can't be around 3 decks dominating the format.  There's too large of a card pool to allow that.  Not only that, but the re-occurrence of decks being outdated, then more than viable again shows us that certain strategies will always stay on the top.

Look at combo decks for instance.  Pre-restriction Academy had to be chopped up and mutilated because it was to fast.  Would anyone be playing it today?  My guess is no.  Draw7 is just as fast as that was, but there's no restrictions there.  Nowadays, there's the storm mechanic sitting next to more resilient decks.

For control we had the transformal U/R Phid decks with FTK's and Masticores in the sideboard (I do believe Phelon won a day of GenCon with it, along with Kowal snagging some Moxen).  Another example is 4-Gush GAT, and Hulk.  Now, raw a line to today's Keeper/Germbus/4cControl and Drain Slaver.  Zherbus said it himself, control is very aggressive nowadays, and it's proven by the FTK's in Drain Slaver, and Exalted Angels/FTK's in Germbus.

Prison decks will soon be on the rise if you ask me.  I see their rebirth right now with Combo Slaver.  You can't tell me infinite Mindslavers isn't a lock on your opponent's game....

Aggro decks were fast, such as 4 LED Madness.  Right now we have FCG, consistently beating down to the dome, or just going off.  Madness creatures and cards had such good synergy, as do the cards in FCG.  Do you see my point, or am I just rambling?

[Saucemaster]

There can't be around 3 decks dominating the format.  There's too large of a card pool to allow that.

I'm going to schematize this argument this way: A larger card pool leads to a larger number of viable decks.

I think you're wrong.  At least, your conclusion doesn't follow necessarily.

For one thing, take an imaginary card pool which consisted of

1) every card currently present in, say, a good Draw-7 list;
2) all the basic lands;
3) 1,000,000 uniquely named duplicates of Grizzly Bears.  I.e. there are 1,000,000 G1 2/2 vanilla creatures in this format.

This imaginary format has one, and exactly one, viable deck, but is actually bigger than Type 1.

What I'm getting at is this: you seem to be assuming that a larger card pool necessarily involves a greater number of FUNCTIONALLY different cards.  That is certainly the case in Type 1 vs. other formats.  And from that, you infer that with a greater number of functionally different cards operating in the format, the format will lead to a greater number of functionally different decks.

This is true as far as it goes, but it COMPLETELY ignores the issue of relative power, and that's where the real problem with your conclusion lies.  There are entire MECHANICS that are simply nowhere *near* broken enough to be viable in Type 1 play.  Madness may be good enough, but Threshold isn't.  Cycling is nice and all, but Slide won't cut it here.  Etc.  This is because you are simply not taking into account that in a format with a few cards that so blatantly overpower 99% of the rest of the cards in the format, the EFFECTIVE card pool is actually quite limited, and squeezes out a great number of the functionally divergent cards.

Type 1 may have the greatest number of functionally different cards, but it's also the format containing the most powerful as well as the least powerful cards in the entire game.  How these two competing influences (functional diversity and power variance) hash out, whether in the end Type 1's not broken enough for the power variance to outweigh the functional diversity, etc.--how these play out is a slightly separate argument.  But it could very well be the case that our larger card pool, by virtue of its increased power variance in the cards comprising the format, actually yields FEWER playable, top-tier decks.

[kirdape3]

The effective cardpool of Type 1 is small enough for Dr. Phil to systematize all the useful cards in a reasonably-sized article.  Therefore, it's not unreasonable to assume that the metagame should, in the hands of reasonably competent players, evolve the same way that the metagame should unfold.

I think what everyone's bitching about is that Type 1 is now just another format of Magic.

[xrizzo]

I think what everyone's bitching about is that Type 1 is now just another format of Magic.

Basically, yes!  You can no longer just pick up a dusty deck from last summer and expect to win in the current environment.  (except Hulk would still probably fare well, but that is the exception, not the norm)

Wizards has masterfully manipulated our format into a less inertial T2.  Luckily, we still have a core set of cards that will never be subpar, and because of that, the newer sets can only affect the decks so much.  Unfortunately, if you miss a new powerful set or two, you may re-enter an unrecognizable T1 with a deck which would now belong in the 'obsolete deck forum.'

[yodoblec]

Wizards has masterfully manipulated our format into a less inertial T2.

R & D has been paying more attention to Type 1 in a whole. Many times they try to print a card that will make the format shift a little like with Chalice and 3Shpere. It isn't enough though they need to concentrate more on a card that is good enough, but won't make a huge splash.

[rozetta]

I have to completely agree with Azhrei.

Those of us that attempt to construct new decks are always striving to find a deck that beats all the others, even if it is only at a subtle (e.g. 60-40) level. It has been my opinion for a while that such a deck exists, but we haven't found it yet. Also, in my opinion, we should be spending more time as a community on these boards, trying to build that deck. We have been blessed with this massive cardpool and we should make full use of it.

I think there's far too much netdecker's complacence at the moment, which is part of the reason people don't feel like any real innovations have occurred.

[thorme]

Those of us that attempt to construct new decks are always striving to find a deck that beats all the others
...
we should be spending more time as a community on these boards, trying to build that deck.

And then?

This is heading to where I want the discussion to go.  It seems as if you feel like moving towards a day when there is exactly 1 optimal deck.  

Do you feel that a Top 8 of 8 identical copies of this theortical deck would be indicative of a healthy format?

[wonkey_donkey]

This is heading to where I want the discussion to go.  It seems as if you feel like moving towards a day when there is exactly 1 optimal deck.  

Do you feel that a Top 8 of 8 identical copies of this theortical deck would be indicative of a healthy format?

That's the thing, though - much as it would mean that there is a theoretically healthy format, there would be few who would argue that one homogenous deck is genuinely good for the format. A healthy format should have few decks, but I believe there can never be one truly ideal deck, as something can be constructed to beat it. Wasn't this what early (and to an extent later) keeper tried to do? Have an answer for everything so that the opponent's game plan was no longer effective? I see the health of the format like a graph that is normally distributed (the 'bell-shaped' curve - don't know if this is called the normal distribution or not, I don't do it in statistics until next september ) that has its peak at about 3 decks per top8. Any more shows inefficiency, any less shows lack of fun and innovation.

The fact that people see one deck as being able to be perfect is not wrong - however, I could then argue that were we to unrestrict gush and maybe FoF, or something similar, there would be 8 very similar decks in every single top8. Is this healthy? I know of few who would say yes. The restricted list will keep this theoretical 'best' deck from rising to the top as there will be more who wish to keep the format available for possibilities than the number of people who wish for this so-called perfection.

Tom

[Azhrei]

Do you feel that a Top 8 of 8 identical copies of this theortical deck would be indicative of a healthy format?

It would certainly mean that the deckbuilders had reached the pinnacle of achievement. Like I said, "healthy" is an illusion as is "balanced".

When you really get down to it, a top eight "should" be 6 Deck and about 2 Anti-Deck. There's always one best deck, but not everyone plays it for some reason other than "being good". Card availability is about the only really legitimate reason not to play the best deck, in which case you play anti-deck.

I think the closest you can get is where there is a best aggro deck, a best control deck, and a best combo deck-- the classic Rock-Paper-Scissors metagame, but in Vintage you get decks that control while comboing out with beatdown, so there's really only room for one best deck.

It used to be where minimizing luck allowed skilled players to win, but it has since moved more toward causing less skilled people to win based on the coin flip.

It's really a neat thing to observe: we tried to reduce luck by playing redudant decks so we could maximize our skill, but then decks became more explosive so skill mattered less and less. Decks now are so consistent on the draw that the thing that *really* matters is... the coin flip, a pure, unalterable bit of chance.

In a weird way, the better Vintage players and builders become the worse it is for the format.

[dicemanx]

There's always one best deck

Theoretically that might be true, but that doesn't mean that it is the best deck to play. This is because the "one best deck" doesn't have superior match-ups against everything, and what you call "hate decks" are in reality very viable on their own. Those are two huge factors to consider; this isn't 1997 anymore. The "anti-decks" are extremely powerful, and are in turn leading candidates for the "best deck".

For instance, suppose we put forth the argument that Hulk is the be all and end all of T1 magic, and if the T1 "pros" woke up and smelled the coffee, they would all be playing it. Well, if someone knew this to be true, then they could bring BUG Dragon and smash their way through the field, because Dragon rapes just about everything except for a few decks (like pure combo or Keeper, or metagamed gay/r). OK, so let's say that a few players decide on draw7 and Keeper to anticipate this strategy. Well, unfortunately Keeper gets hosed by Hulk, while draw7 can probably go around 50/50 with Hulk, which we assumed was supposed to be the dominant archetype. We are getting into rock-paper-scissors all over again, except there are many other possible viable decks that complicate matters even further.

[DavidHernandez]

3. How to you propose to measure a "healthy" format?

I believe there is such a thing as a healthy format. Currently the format is like rock-paper-scissors--there are decks that beat other decks which beat other decks that beat the first deck.

I experienced this last week when I had narrowed my choices to the following decks:

Hulk
Control Slaver
Germbus
Gay/r
7/10

Tony Soto and I played game after game using each deck against each other.  When one of them seemed to be superior we then tested it against a different deck, only to find that Hulk could beat Slaver, Germbus could beat Gay/r, 7/10 could beat Germbus etc.  There were (of course) times when a particular deck could change the matchup after sideboarding (i.e., Gay/r could put in Sigil of Sleep and steal an Angel or Titan), but then proactive sideboarding often made this irrelevant (i.e., running Damping Matrix in the Titan sideboard to shut off pingers with Sigil).

Ultimately, each of the decks had strengths against others, or offered such a good game against the field that it was almost impossible to decide which deck to play.

That is how I define and measure a healthy environment: it becomes almost impossible to decide which deck to play.

This was bourne out in our top 8.  We had:

1 Gay/r
1 Hulk
2 7/10
3 Germbus
1 Old-school Sligh

Dragon, Slaver, Madness and WelderMUD didn't make top 8.

In testing, 7/10 beat Germbus regularly, and this held true in tournament play. Sligh beat 7/10 (twice), which spared Germbus from playing against 7/10 in the top 8 and (imo) allowed Germbus to win the whole thing when Germbus beat Sligh.

Right now, I think the West Coast metagame is:

Hulk
Control Slaver
Germbus
Gay/r
7/10
GAT

GAT would have made top 8 over one of the Germbus decks, but the deciding match went into turns on game 3. One of the players needed to concede to the other, but they refused. As a result, neither of them made it in (based on tiebreakers).

Some would argue that Madness, Keeper-04, and Dragon belong in that mix, but I would disagree based on testing.

There is no best deck right now, and whether or not you will win is based on your skill and what you get matched against.

Dave

[Mixing Mike]

Do you feel that a Top 8 of 8 identical copies of this theortical deck would be indicative of a healthy format?

That's just how it was like a few years ago before FoF was printed (read Keeper circa 1997).

Then we get back to the dicussions of 'my one card is better than your one card :p'  That doesn't get anyone anywhere by the end of the day.  Not to mention that we already know that having one super deck that beats all is NOT a healthy format.  

I totally agree with Dave's points on a healthy T1 format = an undecisive top deck.

@Saucemaster:  I wasn't concentrating on the card pool very much, as it was a much diffrent card pool.  The card pool shifts based on the metagame.  Would you ever consider playing Masticore right now?  

I was trying to point out that when the more aggressive the format is at any given time, the more viable combo decks there are, and the more aggressive control decks are.  When the metagame is more control, control can be less aggressive.