What is Perfection?

[WildWillieWonderboy]

This post has been heavily edited so as to make it more coherent. (This is one reason that we shouldn't try to post at three in the morning)

How this came to be: I responded to the healthy format thread in open, http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=299217#299217, which sparked other thoughts to arise. They are here.

healthy=ok
perfect=the most extreme degree of healthy

One's idea of the quality of the metagame is directly governed by his ideas of what meta would be unplayable and what meta would be perfect, because "healthy" lies somewhere between the two. The only analogy I can think of involves mathematics. Suppose the ideas of a healthy format were all points on the line of the function f(h)=+/-[(1-x^2)^(1/2)]. This is a circle with the vertex at (0,0) with a radius of 1. Now suppose that any idea of the perfect meta is on the graph of another function f(p)=+/-[(4-x^2)^(1/2)], which is a circle with the same vertex and a radius of 2. All of one's ideas of the meta are a linear function of the form y=mx+b. The line must have a y-intercept (b) of zero, because this is the absolute unplayable meta. the line intersects the two circle graphs at the points where ones ideas are with respect to that function i.e., ideas on what is healthy and what is perfect.

Here are my ideas and my explanation of them as far as what would make for a perfect format.

Milton’s Ideal Format Law

1) There are infinite playable decks.
It is generally accepted that innovation is the trademark of a healthy format or, if a format is not "stagnant", then it is healthy. Therefore, since health is simply a lesser degree of perfection, having infinite values of what is healthy is perfect.

2) Playable = Best.
In a metagame where all decks are equally represented in terms of skill and number of players, all playable decks will be equally good. Therefore, if the playable decks are all better than the non-playable decks, then playable=best.

3) The definition of the format is infinitely intricate.
Many people feel that the change from paper rock scissors to 5-axis is a sign of growth and "health." Therefore, it follows logically that as the scheme of definition grows more intricate, the format becomes healthier.

4) There are infinite players at every tournament.
Tournament turnout is a sign of interest in the format. Also, none of the above can be true without this being true, because infinite viable decks being represented means having infinite players.
(Note: Milton is my last name, Willie Milton is my full name)

Props to everyone who read this and posted criticisms on this thread so I could revise it.

If anyone can fault my logic, post away.

[doomhed]

Well, small question.

 Does this post in any way elp the community understand anything of value or does it take up space? I would expect this thread to become "scorched earth"

[Ric_Flair]

WildWillieWonderboy:

Clean up what you are saying.  Your prolixity is not impressive.  This is not a Scrabble game or a conference on Post-Structuralism.  TELL US WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, make an argument.  I am not asking you to dumb your post down but simply make the argument sharper and more clear.  I think there is something to what your saying, but everything is just hazy enough to detract from being actually thought provoking.  We have plenty of jargon and lingo as it is, there is no need to make more.

[monstre]

I think any definition of a "healthy format" is really just confessional speech, meaning that it's more about the author's personal vision for an ideal format than an objective definition. As more of a casual player, I happen to fall into the camp of maximal diversity, but I can see how a more competitive player would want the format to be predictable and the number of playable decks to be small. There is a tension between players who are hoping for continued renewal of the format (aka innovation) and those who seek a total understanding of the format in order to get a competitive advantage. I suspect your definition of a healthy format as a lot to do with which of those groups you identify with.

[Mixing Mike]

You're contraditing yourself.  You agreed with Ric Flair before hand, who feels 3-5 decks should exit in a balanced metagame.  Now you're saying infinite.  You're not making sense...

I'm going to let Kerz make the next point....

No, see.. the less decks, the more healthy the format. Look at Type two, the format that is almost completely DCI regulated. At any time, there are only 3-4 competitive decks, which is a good thing, really. It makes testing and anticipating metagames easier. Only three archetypes in a t8 for type one is EXTREMELY low, I'd even go as far to say its ahead of its time. Maybe the amazing player base at this tournament is a reason.

In summation: less decks = good, more decks = disorganized rogue format.

Yes, there are a lot of decks built out there.  Many of them have become obsolete, some even towards the decks they were made to beat (read Ankh Sligh, Sui, etc...).  Other decks at the top of the field force them out of being viable in any given metagame.  And by field I reffer to the general Type I Metagame, and that article found here about the 5 Axis Metagame.

[WildWillieWonderboy]

After this point, my post has been edited to what it is now.