[Discussion-Strategy Issues] Meta: Diversifying or Unifying?

[Kerz]

After Control Slaver taking down Waterbury, this deck has now claimed dominace over 2 of the largest tournaments of the year in sucession (GenCon before it). This shows that the metagame is becoming less varied (a good thing) and focused upon a few solid upper tier decks.

Completely contrasting to this, the top 16 of Waterbury was a varied crop of tons of different archetypes. The entire tournament followed this suit: there was 14 archetypes in the top 16! GenCon was also following this (though not as extreme) with 6 different archetypes in the top eight!

Now, with this contrasting data (from big American tournaments), trying to figure out which way the metagame is turning can be difficult. What do you think? After the two largest tournaments of the year, is the Metagame Diversifying or Unifying?

[Eastman]

The metgame is not which deck 'won' but what was there. There were nearly even numbers of every viable archetype at Waterbury. The meta at that t ournament was fully diverse.

[Kerz]

The metgame is not which deck 'won' but what was there. There were nearly even numbers of every viable archetype at Waterbury. The meta at that t ournament was fully diverse.

Well, a large part of a metagame is the dominating deck(s). Another question arises: Is Control Slaver dominant or just a solid choice? Waterbury and GenCon arn't its only wins in the past few months (not if they wouldn't be enough, though).

[Smmenen]

Dominating?  Is one Control Slaver in the top 16 of both tournaments dominating?

[Grand Inquisitor]

I'm with Smennen; the deck is simply a solid choice, since it has some raw power, and flexible answers.  It also seems to dodge hate pretty well, since I would figure a lot of people were gunning for it at this tournament.

As far as the overall metagame, I would say that it isn't really converging, so much as maturing.  People are finally starting to play storm combo, and on the other hand, people have found answers to Gay-R and 4cc, the frontrunners before GenCon.

Any format where mono-blue and storm combo can compete sounds healthy to me.

[Toad]

In my opinion there are way too many archetypes in Type One currently. This shows a serious lack of competitiveness. In a highly competitive field, no more than half a dozen of decks should be played on a serious basis.

[MuzzonoAmi]

But you're neglecting the absurdly complex metagame created by Type 1's vast cardpool. Because there are so many strategies that are equally capable of winning a game under the design constraints of the format, it becomes almost impossible to assign labels to decks such as 'viable' or 'teir 1'. Because there are no clearly defined Teir 1 or 2 decks (though there are a few decks that people target when designing their decks/sideboards such as Dragon and Welder decks) it is possible to play 8 rounds agianst decks that can be objectively called 'competitive'  but still never repeat a matchup or play a mirror.

For example, if I go to a tourney and play against Mono-U, The Man Show, Dragon, TPS, 4c Control, U/R Fish, FCG, and Control Slaver, I would say I played in a competitive environment. All of those decks have the right tools to deal with threats from most other decks in the metagame, have few if any autoloss mathchups, and can with a large tourney in the hands of a skilled player. We're not talking about people randomly winning tournies with Extended decks, we're talking about a great metagame diversity. Which, contrary to the 'esteemed' opinions of many Meandeckers, is not necessarily a bad thing.

[jpmeyer]

Mostly, it just seems like there are a lot of decks that are "good enough," and "good enough" with enough brokenness showing up is enough to win a small tourney.

There has been a fair amount of "consolidation" though, such as reducing the number of Workshop decks.

[Toad]

But you're neglecting the absurdly complex metagame created by Type 1's vast cardpool.

The size of the available cardpool is not really a consideration. Just have a look at the other formats supported by WOTC. In Extended you have at most 10 strong decks. In Standard, that is pretty much equivalent. Nevertheless, Extended has 3 or 4 times the amount of cards Standard has. White Weenie or Elves are potential archetypes in Standard. Do they see play? No, because the real tournament players focus on the best decks. Hence, you see Ravager Affinity everywhere. Last Grand Prix (NY), 35% of the players ran Affinity. Is that a bad thing? No, It just shows players play with the best deck available. You'll never see that in Type One, because T1 players are often playing with pet decks or under budget constraints..

we're talking about a great metagame diversity. Which, contrary to the 'esteemed' opinions of many Meandeckers, is not necessarily a bad thing.

Just ask the pros. I've been playtesting Type One with Olivier Ruel, Fred Courtois and Jose Barbero yesterday evening, three strong french pros, and we had some discussions about Type One. Basically, they think Type One is a low competitive metagame because of the insane amount of different archetypes winning tournaments. Have a look at Extended. Why don't people play UW or UR Control there? Because UB (Tog) is simply better. A diverse metagame is a sign of lack of competitiveness and focus, not a sign of a healthy format.

[thorme]

... you see Ravager Affinity everywhere. Last Grand Prix (NY), 35% of the players ran Affinity. Is that a bad thing? No,

...

A diverse metagame is a sign of lack of competitiveness and focus, not a sign of a healthy format.

So a meta dominated by a single deck is healthy and a diverse metagame isn't?

Were you dropped on your head as a small child?

[Zherbus]

Genuinely diverse metagames are fantastic. Diverse metagames that contain 'strictly-worse-than' decks are in need of consolidation. Personally, I think the current metagame leans towards genuinely diverse.

[bebe]

Having a large card pool is half thr reason the meta game is diverse. The other half is the brokeness of our card pool. Extended does not have P9 to accelerate into broken wins. There are half a dozen decks that can break out turn one and then control the game a turn or two for the win.
As newer cards enter the pool we find even more broken interactions leading to a number of viable decks.
Toronto is notorious for introducing new decks that take you by surprise. I never know what to expect at a given event. When Dicemanx can be beaten in three straight games playing 4cc you know that he's playing against some very good decks. Especially considering that he won the week before with the same deck.
We are also diverse because we seek meta solutions. Burninator is a clear example of this. No it did not win. But it took down contenders. We find that happens here as well. A random deck will knock you out of contention if meta gamed against your build.
It is interesting to see each monthly breakdown of decks. But do not expect to see a dominant  deck for awhile. We might see some dominant cards though.

[LoA]

Fewer top-tier decks reflects a tighter metagame, both in terms of available cardpool and player skill.  Formats like block often boil down to 1 or 2 decks and a sea of hate decks because the best players will discover the top decks then, over the course of a season, there is a certain amount of tweaking.  The mono-green and r/g LD decks in standard right now work because of Affinity.

Type 1 is a different story in a number of regards.  First, I think it's fair to say that the level of playskill, although much higher than it was 2 or 3 years ago, still lags behind the Pro Tour.  There is innovation in the format, but I imagine if Robert Dougherty sat down and focused on Type 1 something new and amazing would result.  

Second, since the cardpool is so massive, whatever hot new deck is developed will have a foil available for the next tournament.  Affinity is hot in Type 2 because there's no Null Rod or Energy Flux to hose it.  Whatever deck becomes hot in Type 1 can expect a hoser at the next tournament (see: Goblin Welder and Lava Dart).  This creates a much more protean metagame than other, more narrow, formats.  

Finally, and I include myself in this category to a certain extent, because of the history of Type 1 and the legacy of certain decks, nostalgia plays a bigger role in deck selection for a lot of people.  In Type 2 you can't play a deck like White Trash because you miss it; in Type 1 you can pick up a deck like Hatred and play it because you miss it.  It might not be the best deck for the current metagame, but there always seem to be people at Type 1 tournaments who base their deck selection on "remember when..." rather than "Based on Phil's articles, I've decided to play..."  This keeps the field broader than it would be if you based your metagame assumptions solely on stuff from TMD.

[Saucemaster]

Having a large card pool is half thr reason the meta game is diverse. The other half is the brokeness of our card pool. Extended does not have P9 to accelerate into broken wins. There are half a dozen decks that can break out turn one and then control the game a turn or two for the win.

I know that this might not necessarily be your point, but I think that statement lends itself pretty well to what JP said: there are a number of "good enough" decks that are decent and capable of enough extreme brokenness to win a few tournaments, even if there are other decks that might actually be strictly better.  In that case, the diversity of the metagame would indicate subpar deck choices, it's just that "subpar" in Vintage isn't *nearly* as far below "tier 1" as it is in a format like Type 2 or even Extended.

Second, since the cardpool is so massive, whatever hot new deck is developed will have a foil available for the next tournament. Affinity is hot in Type 2 because there's no Null Rod or Energy Flux to hose it. Whatever deck becomes hot in Type 1 can expect a hoser at the next tournament (see: Goblin Welder and Lava Dart). This creates a much more protean metagame than other, more narrow, formats.

I think this is also an extremely important point.  It's sometimes very hard to tell whether Type 1 is, at any given moment, being defined by the brokenness or the *hate* for the brokenness.  Look at how Fish--which is fairly obviously a deck designed specifically to hate the kinds of decks that rise to the top in Type 1--has seriously altered the metagame this year.  It almost singlehandedly pushed Tog out of contention, for example.  That's not to say Fish isn't one of the best decks in Vintage right now.  It is, though as the metagame adjusts, it becomes less so.  But it's cards like Null Rod and Wasteland that bear the largest burden of responsibility for Fish's success, backed up by ingenious tempo-control.

There's nothing wrong with that, but I think it does end up lending Vintage a diversity that other formats might lack simply because when you combine a PTQ style metagame with incredibly powerful hosers, you end up with more decks than you'll see in Standard or Extended.

All that said, I think it's *still* the case that people are far too willing to play decks that are just not as good as other decks available.

So a meta dominated by a single deck is healthy and a diverse metagame isn't?

I think there's actually two parts to this--two different components to a "healthy" metagame that you and Toad are each stressing.  The underlying assumption of a healthy metagame is cutthroat competition.  If there's not sufficient competition in the format, and bad decks are being played, then at some point the Spikes will find something to ruin the format.  I think that Toad is saying that this underlying condition isn't met yet.  The sign of a *healthy* metagame is when, despite the best efforts of Spike, there are multiple tier-1 decks available; I read you as saying (and I could be mis-reading you as saying) that the above condition *is* sufficiently met, and that since we still have a great number of viable decks, the format is in great shape.

The other question is whether any metagame can really be "healthy" by those standards.  I still think that, theoretically, there should be a very small handful of "best" decks that edge out the rest, but due to the reasons mentioned above, that effect is actually less pronounced in Vintage than it is in something like Standard or Extended, until a deck is really and truly broken to hell (like 4-Gush GAT, for example), and then either everyone adapts immediately or everyone dies.

[Mykeatog]

As opposed to argueing about the other formats relevants to the health of our format, well; stop doing that.

In other formats there are not cards like Demonic Tutor, Ancestrall Recall, or Tinker. They don't even have restricted cards! How can you talk about the diversity, and make comparison's to what is obviously a completely different game. I don't say, "in Risk owning Asia is better than owning Australia which means that Darksteel Collossus is better than Ophidian!" so don't tell me that cause type 2 tog used concentrate it is going to be useful in type 1.

Do I know the answer to the metagame question? No. But I also know that we aren't even heading towards it while we are talking about extended, masques block constructed, and rochester draft.

[Eastman]

Mike is right about something there: Other formats are irrelevant to this discussion.

All I've seen describing what makes a 'healthy' t1 format is conjecture. Do any of you have any basis for your criteria?

We know what sort of things make a format unhealthy; bad decks, one dominant deck, etc. but does a lack of those 'bad format' qualifiers imply a healthy format? I don't know.

It seems like if we're going to discuss the 'health' of the format we should construct a model for what in fact makes a format 'healthy.'


It IS a diverse format. The power level is also higher then it's been. It's boring to me that there isn't  a particular shift to try and hate against but I don't think that necessarily means the format is 'unhealthy'.

[Saucemaster]

In other formats there are not cards like Demonic Tutor, Ancestrall Recall, or Tinker. They don't even have restricted cards! How can you talk about the diversity, and make comparison's to what is obviously a completely different game.

I think that even aside from the fact that whatever the individual cards, the mechanics are the same, the past year or two of Vintage success with decks that originated in Extended or Standard and were ported over belie this statement.  Rather than just say "they're totally different", which I don't see any reason for, we should be exploring exactly WHAT makes them different and trying to judge what effect that has on why we seem to have so many more viable decks in Type 1 than 1.x or Type 2 ever seem to see.

Oh, and Australia 4L.  You can't hold Asia unless you're already winning, man, it's strictly win-more.

All I've seen describing what makes a 'healthy' t1 format is conjecture. Do any of you have any basis for your criteria?

I feel exactly the opposite, that over the past year or so there has been endless debate over what does and does not constitute a "healthy" Vintage format.  What model do you propose?

[Eastman]

All I've seen describing what makes a 'healthy' t1 format is conjecture. Do any of you have any basis for your criteria?

I feel exactly the opposite, that over the past year or so there has been endless debate over what does and does not constitute a "healthy" Vintage format.  What model do you propose?

The debate has been endless because no one has any basis for their criteria, it's just been (and probably will be for a long time to come) the 'conjecture vs. conjecture' argument.

I don't purport to have a model of my own. I'm trying to encourage those of you who have proposed them to think about the basis for your models and prepare them accordingly so that this particular argument can eventually be put to rest. The current mode of debate is not likely to facilitate that happy conclusion.

[thorme]

http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17956&highlight=

Related link to discussion of format "health".

[Matt]

I don't say, "in Risk owning Asia is better than owning Australia which means that Darksteel Collossus is better than Ophidian!" so don't tell me that cause type 2 tog used concentrate it is going to be useful in type 1.

But it IS useful to say that because t2 tog used Concentrate, t1 tog should also be drawing as many cards as it can. You're deliberately drawing the wrong conclusions, here. There's a lot to be learned from other formats.

[Kerz]

Asking if the metagame is diversifying or unifying

=/=

Asking if the format is healthy.

Can we get back on track?

[Saucemaster]

Ouch, pwned.  You're right.

I'd say that the metagame is pretty much holding steady right now in terms of the total *number* of viable decks being played at any one tournament.  As an aggregate, it might look like it's more diverse, but for example no one's playing Tog right now because it's more or less "rotated" out, and people have been playing Workshop Aggro because it's rotated in to combat Fish.  I would say that the speed of this rotation is increasing pretty drastically right now (in Vintage terms; it's probably still relatively glacial in Type 2 or 1.x terms), but the root cause of that is pretty easy: we've had at least one big, high-profile tournament a month for a while now, and it doesn't look to be slowing anytime soon.

I think that the longer this goes on, though, the more likely the metagame is to start unifying--e.g. Tournament B will have four or five "top" decks, and a couple decks that beat Tournament A's top decks, and maybe a surprise deck here and there; and then Tournament C will have four or five NEW top decks based on the results of Tournament B, etc.  That's a relatively unified metagame in Type 1 terms, but it's a unified metagame that's evolving quickly.

[Purple Hat]

I think to a fairly large extent that type one is dominated by Variants.  In standard fairly recently you had the rise of W/x control.  People splashed different colors but generally white based control was big.  We in T1 would be tempted to classify W/g, W/u and what ever else they played as different decks.  

To some extent this is a function of our ability to have varried stratigies in our decks, but I would argue that in reality TMS, TnT, 5/3, etc. are all the same type of deck.  I would argue that TPS and DeathLong are similar enough to be different takes on the same type of deck.  I understand that DeathLong and TPS represent different methods of going about abusing the storm mechanic but I find this to be similar to playing a heavier blue base and Somber Hoverguard in standard Affinity rather then playing the more traditional versions.  

How much of our vaunted "Diversity" is what in other formats would be called metatgaming or variants?  I don't necessarily know the answer to this...at what point do you cease to be a variant and become a new and destinct archetype?  I feel like we like names too much but how many TRUE archetypes are actually being played right now?  It seems that how we define our archetypes is something we need to address before we can truely move on to the questions of diversity.

Is it the kill card, the primary strategy, the engine, the color mix, etc. that distinguishes type one archetypes from eachother?  Is it like porn (ie. "I'll know it when I see it")?

Hale

[jpmeyer]

I think it seems like the format is expanding because it seems like it's moving more towards a PTQ style format than PT one because of the increased frequency of tournies.  You don't need to (and usually can't come up with) with crushing tech for each tourney because of the frequency of them.  As long as you jump ahead of the game you can do well, and jumping ahead of the game often requires a different deck on possibly a week-to-week basis.  If you're changing your decks up that often, it's going to look diverse even though there are probably only one or two "best" decks for that week.

[Grand Inquisitor]

How much of our vaunted "Diversity" is what in other formats would be called metatgaming or variants?

I don't think this is truly the case.  Mostly, because even if you decide to pigeon hole a group of archetypes in Vintage, it doesn't do you very well.

Lets look at control decks that have done well lately:

Hulk
4cc
Mono U
Control Slaver

All of these pack a core 30 cards (i'm guessing) that we dub control cards.  However, their draw engines, kill conditions, and 'disruption' are all different enough, not only in that they use different colors or cards, but more especially because they require different answers to beat them.  If everyone showed up at a tournament with one of these four decks, what would they sideboard?  REB is solid against Mono-U and Hulk, but lacking against 4cc (most bombs are non-blue), and Control Slaver (Welders, REBs).  Damping Matrix will do well against Slaver, but is useless against the rest for the most part.  Slaver's bloodmoon and Mono-U's B2B would help hose the other decks' manabase, but would be impotent in the mirror or the opposite matchup.

Its this amount of mismatch which makes it difficult to simplify archetypes, since once you take out the restricted cards it becomes a catch 22 whether you hedge against one 'variant' or another.

Although I do think there is some chaff that needs to be cut, I think its much closer to JP's comment

As long as you jump ahead of the game you can do well, and jumping ahead of the game often requires a different deck on possibly a week-to-week basis. If you're changing your decks up that often, it's going to look diverse even though there are probably only one or two "best" decks for that week.

Once people found how to beat Gay-R, this has been the theme of the summer.

[Smmenen]

And will continue to be the theme for the remainder of the year, I predict.

[Purple Hat]

@Grand Inquisitor: I'm not saying that all decks could, or even should, be simplified down into their base concepts, ie. Control/combo/aggro.  What I'm saying is that we frequently talk about people playing w/MUD, MUD and Stax as playing different archetypes.  I would tend to say that those three decks ought to be considered one archetype.  While it makes sense that there should be more basic archetypes available to type one it is also the case that we frequently call things different archetypes when in fact they are merely variants of eachother.  How different is TMS from TnT or Stacker really?  All of these decks are kinds of Workshop Aggro designed to abuse the efficient beats of Juggernaut backed up with Welders and various other utility cards.  I think of these decks as the same archetype because their ideal strategy is essentially the same and the difference comes in the secondary plans.  

I think this type of consolidation can be done with many of the decks in Type One, but that it does not apply to all of them.  I don't think that the successful control decks should all be grouped together the same way that I don't think that Aggro Madness and Workshop Aggro should be.  I'm not sure where we should be drawing the lines or how we should go about doing it, but I'm confident that we have far fewer archetypes then we have names.

Hale

[Nameless]

I think it seems like the format is expanding because it seems like it's moving more towards a PTQ style format than PT one because of the increased frequency of tournies.  You don't need to (and usually can't come up with) with crushing tech for each tourney because of the frequency of them.  As long as you jump ahead of the game you can do well, and jumping ahead of the game often requires a different deck on possibly a week-to-week basis.  If you're changing your decks up that often, it's going to look diverse even though there are probably only one or two "best" decks for that week.

What are we calling a PTQ-style format?  Are you referring to one with rampant net-decking, or one where people are actually testing decks, and adjusting for the metagame, and/or just playing a deck because of the metagame?  I ask because, from what I hear, Waterbury demonstrated the opposite of this, that people just ignored the damn metagame and played whatever they wanted anyway.  

[Grand Inquisitor]

from what I hear, Waterbury demonstrated the opposite of this, that people just ignored the damn metagame and played whatever they wanted anyway

You heard incorrectly.  Look at the top 16 decks:

2x TPS
2x Mono U
2x Slaver
1x Stacker
1x Belcher
1x Deathlong
1x Turbo Land
1x Hulk
1x GAT
1x TnSlaver
1x U/G Madness
1x Gay-R
1x 4cc


Now let me organize that a little for you...

the deck everyone who's been testing knew would come around
2x TPS

lessons learned from GenCon
2x Mono U
2x Slaver
1x Stacker

powerful (yet susceptible) decks piloted intelligently
1x Belcher
1x Deathlong
1x Turbo Land

well metagamed decks
1x Hulk
1x GAT
1x TnSlaver
1x U/G Madness

the tail end of the metagame curve
1x Gay-R
1x 4cc


There's not really any bad decks here, per se.  I haven't seen the overall attendance breakdown, but from what I saw, the decks that showed up but floundered were FCG, Urphid variants (not realizing how much better B2B is than Bloodmoon), Dragon (which I'm guessing got nabbed by welder hate), and Stax (forgot that everyone else would be playing welders too).

Its certainly diverse, but I would say its coherent.  The $50 question is "After 4cc and Gay-R, whats the next 'big' deck to get taken out?"


As far as Vintage becoming more like a PTQ, I don't really know what PTQ's are like, I just know I agree with JP.

[jpmeyer]

I would assume Control Slaver