Comments on the Zherbus Report.

[Royal Ass.]

I wanted to discuss some of the issues that were brought up in the September Midsize Type One Metagame Report.  The comparison of proxied metagames vs. sanctioned unproxied metas is something that seems really interesting but hasn’t really been talked about to much extent other than people bitching that they don’t own power.

One thing that I think is apparent in this website is that a large number of  the members are from the East Coast and play in proxied metagames.  I for one live in the Midwest and both of the local stores in my area that hold weekly tournaments only hold sanctioned events.  Playing since Revised, I have never played in a proxy event.  I’m sure this has had a large impact on the kinds of games I have played, and the type of meta that is present.    

The reason I found the latest Zherbus article interesting is that it’s the first time I’ve ever heard someone shed light on this issue that people in proxied metas often overlook, but is apparent to people playing in un-proxied metas.  For someone like me reading this site, I constantly have to remind myself that the only reason the decks and situations exist in most of the threads are because people are playing with proxied cards.  For me this makes the information I get off this site far less useful than to someone playing in the East within proxied metagames.  

In a sanctioned field you will see a lot of different kinds of decks and a lot more personal creativity in deck building because of the lack of power.  At my local Sunday tournament which consists of anywhere between 8-2x people you will see about 25% playing with power and the rest running budget or “petâ€? decks.  This is an extremely different situation than in a meta where anyone can play decks with workshops or bazaars.  

Right now in type one Magic, it is almost as if two factions exist within the format.  The proxied meta vs. un-proxied meta.  The un-proxied meta gets largely ignored on this site because I believe that the majority of posters are from a proxied meta area.  Until there is either a universal rule by Wizards allowing proxied cards in sanctioned events or every store abandons sanctioned type one tournaments in favor of proxied events there will continue to be a division within type one.

I believe this division is bad for several reasons.  It makes it hard for people to have national discussions about what is going on in the global meta because not everyone is essentially playing the same format.  It also disrupts innovation in certain areas because many people don’t test decks that run cards that they don’t have the fiscal means of acquiring.  Finally its bad for the format as a whole because an outsider looking at the format can’t really evaluate what the format is like because it is so fractionalized due to confliction proxy rules.  This diminishes the overall integrity of type one.

I’m not going to try to propose a solution for the situation or even say it is something that needs to be changed.  Perhaps the proxy craziness is just another one of the nuances that makes type one what it is.  However, I would be nice to have more attention focused to the issue, because I think it is significant to type one as a whole.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this issue?

Spelling mistake corrected. Read the primer.
-Jacob

[Team-Judgement]

Go Zherbus primer


And the report, it was awesome, well its really embarrasing to be a danish guy, but please we are not all non-powered sligh players ^^
But i would also like to defend Denmark, we have 2 groups of people, the people living in Jylland(i know this means nothing to you guys.. but whatever)allways playing full powered Tier 1 decks, testing alot and very active. Then we have a Sjællander group (this doesnt make anysense at all, but Sjælland is the island where Copenhagen is located, you got to know copenhagen) where a very small number of people play powered decks, 5-10 i think, alot of these get in T8 very often, because they play good powered decks. And the rest is playing budget version of powered decks, casual elf decks, sligh, suicide, fish, landstill and stuff like that(but they are still metagaming their sligh decks...). Then sometimes it happens that some from the Jylland group take the train to copenhagen(it cost about 80 $)to play, of course we only go there if there is a mox to play for or something like that. So sometimes you will see good decks in T8 and sometimes sligh, wether the Jylland group has bin there or not

to confirm that here is the results from a tournament played in Jylland

http://www.manapool.dk/nyheder.asp?id=331

And yeah as Royal Ass(!) says the non-proxied metagame's gets ignored here, even thought allmost all of the tourneys in Europe is non-proxied. I really got no clue about why the american tourneys are proxied when ours arent, but as far as i know it was something like: Bla Bla Bla Bla we get money to keep em sanctioned Bla Bla Bla Bla. And yeah i would really like proxy tournaments, not 10 but 5 proxy tournaments would be nice. Since it would create a more healthy metagame in Europe.

Uffff yeah and by the way Vintage rating rox ^^

/Rasmus Roar

[Nehptis]

If this thread is truely about the Zherbus report on SCG then my comment is very positve.  It was a well authored report that I found very useful in understanding the current meta along with Pip's monthly data report.

I believe though that based on the first post this thread is much more concerned with talking about the usefulness / non-usefulness of Proxied events.  So, I want to add is this.

Proxied events even out the playing field at the most basic level, the card pool.  From there it comes down to deck design skills, play skills, and always a little luck.

[Ric_Flair]

The issue with the Mana Drain and with Zherbus' article is simple.  We are dedicated to building the best decks possible.  Proxy events work.  Leave the thinly veiled political shit out of this.  They work, they reinvigorate the format, and they produce the best metagame.  If your area does not proxy, no matter what, the results will be less than ideal.  That is the purpose of the Mana Drain and the heart of what I read Z's comments to be:  we are only going to discuss the best of all metagames.  Proxies are really an irrelevant issue.  Some people need them to compete (including myself) and some (more than you would think), don't.  But how you get the cards is not important.  What is important, what produces reliable results, and what the discussions on this site are revolving around is that highest, most tuned, most developed metagame.  If your metagame doesn't allow proxies, you aren't really playing in a relevant format.  There is a national, in fact, international discussion and metagame involved here.  It is the best metagame.

As an aside, if your metagame does not have proxies, do what all good citizens in a democracy and/or capitalist society do: vote with your feet and wallets.  A TO's rules are only enforceable to the extent that they have people in the events.  Eventually when everyone plays a proxy events, the dumbass anti proxy TOs will feel the pinch in their bottom line and change their minds.  Organize a boycott and your own tournaments and shove it up the stubborn TO's ass.  That is what I suggest.  It works here in NE.  One guy for a long time did not allow proxies.  Guess what?  A competitor did and now both run proxy events.  It is a perfect lesson in market forces.  

You, as the tournament players, control the format, not the TOs.  

And that is the essential lesson and liberating power behind TMD and Vintage.  WE OWN THIS FORMAT.  No one else.  US.  WotC won't cooperate?  Fuck em.  TOs won't cooperate?  Boycott 'em.  Eventually all these "business people" will get the message.

[Royal Ass.]

I can't tell by reading the last two replies if either of those people even read my thread.  If this keeps continuing I would ask a moderater to just go ahead and close the thread as it will just confuse what I had origionaly wanted to talk about.  

thanks

[Dr. Sylvan]

My pleasure. Consult this for details.[/color]

[Zherbus]

I reopened this because I would like Royal Ass. to elaborate on his point. I didn't think people went off-topic, in fact I thought many of the replies were thoughtful. There must be a breakdown of articulating your point somewhere.

RE: Copenhagen - I already noticed that in preparations for Octobers article. It's a very interesting dynamic that you'll see in a number of places. Especially in my mid-range articles, you'll see the effect a carload of players from out of town can have an effect on the results. In the larger events, it just comes out in the wash.

RE: Fractured Format - Keep in mind that the reason we have 2500 members on TMD, tons of tournaments worldwide every month, and power has tripled in price is because of the Type 1 community's voice. When we were on bdominia.com, there were no proxy tournaments (I started the trend in New England by holding a few proxy events in which Hadley followed and the rest was the domino effect... so if you hate proxies, blame me) and there were maybe 50 active members at any given week posting.

Proxies work in a very interesting way. First, it attracts more players to the format (therefore dispelling myths about the format and showing people how fun it is). Because of the attraction, the format gains more innovation. Because of innovation decks like Sligh, Suicide, and Parfait become invalidated and the price of good type 1 cards goes up.

In summary, letting people use a limited number of FAKE cards made the price of REAL cards go up! If that's not ass-backwards, then I don't know what is.

Back to my point, however, I would rather have a format where 75% of the players can closely relate to each other and have 25% (or 33% or even 50%) not share the same experiences as the rest than to have a format where type 1 events, discussion, and interest is as it was 3-4 years ago.

RE: My article... thank you for the kind words.

[serialjester]

I wanted to discuss some of the issues that were brought up in the September Midsize Type One Metagame Report.  The comparison of proxied metagames vs. sanctioned unproxied metas is something that seems really interesting but hasn’t really been talked about to much extent other than people bitching that they don’t own power.

One thing that I think is apparent in this website is that a large number of  the members are from the East Coast and play in proxied metagames.  I for one live in the Midwest and both of the local stores in my area that hold weekly tournaments only hold sanctioned events.  Playing since Revised, I have never played in a proxy event.  I’m sure this has had a large impact on the kinds of games I have played, and the type of meta that is present.    

The reason I found the latest Zherbus article interesting is that it’s the first time I’ve ever heard someone shed light on this issue that people in proxied metas often overlook, but is apparent to people playing in un-proxied metas.  For someone like me reading this site, I constantly have to remind myself that the only reason the decks and situations exist in most of the threads are because people are playing with proxied cards.  For me this makes the information I get off this site far less useful than to someone playing in the East within proxied metagames.  

In a sanctioned field you will see a lot of different kinds of decks and a lot more personal creativity in deck building because of the lack of power.  At my local Sunday tournament which consists of anywhere between 8-2x people you will see about 25% playing with power and the rest running budget or “petâ€? decks.  This is an extremely different situation than in a meta where anyone can play decks with workshops or bazaars.  

Right now in type one Magic, it is almost as if two factions exist within the format.  The proxied meta vs. un-proxied meta.  The un-proxied meta gets largely ignored on this site because I believe that the majority of posters are from a proxied meta area.  Until there is either a universal rule by Wizards allowing proxied cards in sanctioned events or every store abandons sanctioned type one tournaments in favor of proxied events there will continue to be a division within type one.

I believe this division is bad for several reasons.  It makes it hard for people to have national discussions about what is going on in the global meta because not everyone is essentially playing the same format.  It also disrupts innovation in certain areas because many people don’t test decks that run cards that they don’t have the fiscal means of acquiring.  Finally its bad for the format as a whole because an outsider looking at the format can’t really evaluate what the format is like because it is so fractionalized due to confliction proxy rules.  This diminishes the overall integrity of type one.

I’m not going to try to propose a solution for the situation or even say it is something that needs to be changed.  Perhaps the proxy craziness is just another one of the nuances that makes type one what it is.  However, I would be nice to have more attention focused to the issue, because I think it is significant to type one as a whole.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this issue?

Spelling mistake corrected. Read the primer.
-Jacob

I see what you're saying, for the most part. Here's My thoughts.

In a non proxy, sanctioned metagame you run into a couple of 'situations' which are represented by the guy with full power, all the major cards, and money to play anything. You also have the guy who has some amazing cards, no more than a handful, and a good assortment of playable stock that lets him play near the top tiers but not overwhelm his opponents' solely on his cardstock alone, and you finally have the guy with no cards, playing budget because that's all he has/can afford and who is trying to make his way slowly into the larger and more expensive cardpool.
I'm in Michigan, and most of the tournaments that have been run here since Vintage picked up in popularity are non proxy tournaments, whether sanctioned or not. There have been an assortment of proxy tournaments recently, mostly due to the unmistakeable success of them elsewhere but traditionally this has been a no proxy state. What this has done to the players here who don't have power is to make them play the game with some sense of abandon when faced with a power wielding opponent. Alot of times it engenders the 'massive hate deck' or the 23 counterspell deck, which in all honesty is not healthy for the metagame at all, but on the flipside are the people who realize that playing unpowered doesn't mean they've lost, and it motivates them to play sharper, think outside of the box more for unexplored tech, and if necessary play the hate, because let's face it: a powered deck is a hate deck towards the flat broke.

There does have to be some level of recognition on the part of each player, or the tournament scene can get dragged down. People sulking about not having power aren't contributing to making faster, more dynamic decks that capitalize on the negative aspects the benchmarks of power cards possess, and people gloating and lording over the populace with their binder of power aren't pushing the envelope, they are relying on the inherit brokeness of their cards to carry their weight, they aren't trying to make them even more broken.

This is a generalization, but it does exist, you see it everytime you play at a tournament. It isn't the be all end all, but it does exist. What has to happen in non proxy tournament areas if they are to be healthy tournament areas is that people need to stop apologizing for playing their deck. I see too many people give up automatically when they sit down against Me. I can build any deck you post, non proxied, I've got it all. People not in My boat pack it in, and I can't figure out why. I'm not apologizing for playing what I do, I spent the money, I'm playing the cards. When someone who has done the same sits down and plays against Me, and they go broken before I do, I accept it. It happens when you play broken cards, and the money on the table is worth respect. I get angry when the deck I'm playing doesn't perform, when I had no chance because of the draws I was getting, but I don't complain about the level of brokenness. At the same time I don't fault the people playing budget, and likewise I expect that I'm either going to win, or they are going to have planned accordingly for a matchup against a powered deck and be able to deal with what I have. Playing unpowered doesn't mean you can't be competitive. Playing rogue doesn't mean you can't be competitive.

So ultimately what has to happen on an individual basis first and a broader territorial basis second is that people have to get past the stigmas of both sides, powered and unpowered, and just play. In this day and age, when you have access to every decklist you could imagine online, it's not hard to find the angle, the slant in your metagame that no one saw and take advantage of it, and this is possible for both the powered and unpowered player. There's only 10,000+ cards, find a way through the gauntlet or bide your time and just develop your skills playing what you've got, build your cardpool, etc.

The proxy tournaments make the field level, but I think they limit the development of tech to the people who really have it in them to find it, rather than making the environment in which it forces people to think outside the box for themselves. Because of the negative synergy of increasing popularity in the format and the static amount of the older cardpool, proxy tournaments are and will no doubt continue to be a necessity for the format, which I don't have a problem with. I ultimately think the game should be played without proxies, and the goal of people playing in proxy tournaments who don't have power should be to win up to the point in which they're powered, and then step aside and let the next batch of unpowered people have their shot. It's unrealistic, due to the money that can be made off power, but it's a nice thought that I can ultimately accept will happen in only a few rare cases.

Finally, I think that the proxy tournaments are good for allowing people to develop the fundamentals of the format, it really is the best teaching tool in the world to play with the cards, even if you don't own them. So much about synergies and matchups and situational decisions would escape so many people were it not for these style of tournaments, and as it contributes to the skill level of the players of the format, thus pushing the envelope and hopefully making people appreciate both the benchmarks as well as the tech that is available.

Neither proxy or non proxy is bad, as long as an acceptance is made of the situation at large. This game is naturally fluid, so asking for rigidity is ludicrous, but accepting the facts of your local situation, or having the drive to do something different to accomodate your own vision of how things should be are the only options. The endless nitpicking and arguing serves to only waste the time you should be using to play the game and enjoy yourself.

[Royal Ass.]

Note: I have a feeling that I’m going to alienate enough people in this post to blacklist me from this site forever….that being said…


First off, Clarifications:
The “last two repliesâ€? that I was referring to were the first two replies immediately after my response, not Rick Flair’s.  Though, that being said, he also failed to connect with what I was talking about.

Zherbus, Thank you for seeing my thread for what it is, and reopening it to allow for thoughtful and calculated posts such as Serialjester’s.

People have really misinterpreted what I was trying to articulate with my original post.  Ironically some of the comments in Rick’s post illustrate exactly what I’m trying to get across.  Unfortunately as a TMD regular I feel he has the wrong take on the issue, an attitude that leads to inbreededness and ignores what is good for the format as a whole.

“we are only going to discuss the best of all metagames.�
-Flair

“What is important, what produces reliable results, and what the discussions on this site are revolving around is that highest, most tuned, most developed metagame.�
-Flair

These are two very important quotes, which I feel really sum up in some ways what the mission of this website is.  And I wholeheartedly agree with what is being said here.  However when you fail to take into consideration all of the different factors that make up a global metagame like type one and write off the areas without proxies you are essentially only developing one of the many aspects of the format.  Because regardless of what is going on out East, there are still thousands of type one players playing in sanctioned formats, which you aren’t connecting with.  Like is stated in my original post, I feel this is bad for type one for several reasons.


I also want to make it clear that I AM NOT WHINING.  I have been playing in an unproxied meta my whole life and am totally unbothered by that fact.  I own power.  I don’t know anything different than the Midwest unproxied scene.  Though, I am smart enough to realize that the fractionalization within the format due to the proxy issue is a problem for type one and leads to confusion and randomness when trying to get a grip on the overall meta.  Zherbus’ article did a really good job of showing this.  I really enjoyed that article because it was the first time that I have personally read about the situation from someone who is speaking from the entrenched East Coast proxied metagame scene.

I want to make it clear once again that I am not advocating ANYTHING in any of these posts.  I am NOT for universal proxies rules.  I am NOT for abolishing all proxie rules and only having sanctioned events.  I have NO solution to the situation, which I feel is a dilemma and a hindrance for the overall advancement of type one.  

I DO however feel that it is an issue that needs be looked at and discussed, that’s why I started this thread.  Zherbus’ article did a good job of showing scientifically what a lot of us not located out East notice what is inherent in the global meta when we read this site and realize that in essence we are playing a different format than you because of proxy rules.

Zherbus, My intentions with this thread were to simply start a discussion about the finding of your report.  For people living in the East in Proxied metas, I’m sure it is difficult for them to comprehend what my original post was about.  To them it seems like I am whining because I’m not in the same situation as them.  That is not the case at all.  I simply wanted to give a personal account of a situation that was only showed in numbers in your report and express the fact that what happened in your report with the random decks isn’t just a totally anomaly, but reflects a lot of metagames across the US and world.  These are people who love the game just as much as you guys do, but due to proxie rules and the population density of type on players on the east coast do not live in the most advance meta in the world.  This does not mean however that these outside players should be overlooked.  I think there needs to be an effort to incorporate these players more into the national discussion over type one.  I say this, simply because it would be good for the format (read the last two paragraphs of my original post).

How will this be done, I don’t know.  That’s why I’m starting a discussion.


That being said I just want to state that I am highly unimpressed with the way the two moderators who stained my post with their red ink have acted on this thread.

Dr. Sylvan- Your little link to the no-whining page was quite cute.  This tells me that you either; a. didn’t read my original post and went only off responses, b. read my original post and didn’t comprehend it, or c. were just being a jerk.  I asked a moderator to close the thread out of respect for the topic, thats all.  That could have been respected.

Jacob “No soup for you!â€? Orlove- You never fail to amuse us all with your witty little snips you make when closing a thread or moving it down to newbie.  I understand you have to make sure there aren’t a thousand suicide threads running around, but there is a fine line between moderating and over-moderating.  Trying to ridicule my original post by over exaggerating a spelling error is uncalled for and unprofessional.  You could have just changed it and instant messaged me if you were really that concerned.  


Royal Ass.  (…hey, I’m just trying to live up to my name)

[Ric_Flair]

Okay, so lets avoid the whole proxy debate, which is just beyond stupid because the facts are the facts and the people have spoken, and just focus on the notion that the Vintage metagame is "unproductively/dangerously splintered."  

Here is the fundamental problem with discussing less than ideal, that is, non-proxied metagames.  Where do we stop?  Do we have to really have to spend time discussing R/G Beatz?  What about Parfait?  What about 1.x Rock with Hymn as the only Vintage card?  There is no common pool outside of the proxied metagame, because there is no floor to the crap that people can and will play.  Look at some of the decks played at GenCon.  Look at some of the cards played--Daru Stinger.  Do we really need to talk about that.  Therefore, the default metagame, the closest thing to a truly common metagame, is the best of all possible metagames--the proxied metagame.  It is that simple.

[Fominian]

<snip>  Therefore, the default metagame, the closest thing to a truly common metagame, is the best of all possible metagames--the proxied metagame.  It is that simple.

As said there is no universal metagame - there is however an ideal metagame, and though it does not have to be proxied, it helps it extremely well.

Why? Simply put - not everyone can afford all the cards necessary to play full out, no proxy.  And this is why people have always try, and forever will attempt to budgetize decks.

Big tournaments, that draw the limelight and also happen to be proxy - those are the metas you should test your decks in, as they are the closest you can get to the ideal metagame.

[nataz]

Interesting topic, however is it just me or is Ric_flair still missing the point?

No matter how you feel about proxies (Royal Ass seems not to care) it doesn’t change the fact that proxies (and number of proxies allowed) do very much change the meta-game you play in.

Here is the fundamental problem with discussing less than ideal, that is, non-proxied metagames.  Where do we stop?...There is no common pool outside of the proxied metagame, because there is no floor to the crap that people can and will play... Therefore, the default metagame, the closest thing to a truly common metagame, is the best of all possible metagames--the proxied metagame.  It is that simple.

You talk about proxy meta-games as if they were all alike. It’s as if you have made a division where there are proxy meta-games, and non-proxy meta-games, each with its defining characteristics. However, the truth of the matter is that it’s not that simple.

There is no standard for a "proxy meta-game" because it varies with how many proxies you allow. Out of this has come something of a trend that I have noticed both in my own tourneys and in tourneys within the New England area.

While that I agree that a 100% proxy meta-game which had zero cost restraints would be great for testing purposes, that almost never happens. In fact, very few power tourneys are 100% proxy (I would say less then 10% of those that I keep track of). Waterbury had 10, SCG 5, Italy (and most of Europe) ZERO, TMD Champs essentially unlimited, etc, etc, etc.  

The Truth is the differences between 100%, ten card, 5 card, and zero card proxy meta-game can be staggering.

My reasoning, take a look at MeanDeck Stax (from Carl's report on SCG).
you would need;

4x workshops
5 moxen
1 lotus
1 recall
1 walk

For a total of 12 easily imagined proxy cards

in a 100% proxy tournament you would have no problem building the deck, and could reasonably expect to see it. In a 10 proxy tournament it would be significantly harder to build the deck (i.e., at least $400-$500 more), but it is still possible to do with a limited collection, and you will still probably see it at the event. In a 5 proxy or Zero proxy event, the cost of a deck like this skyrockets, and its a much safer bet that this will not make up a large part of the meta-game. Very few, if any, players will be sporting it.

This cost bias based on the relationship between number of proxies and types of decks that will show up in the meta-game only gets worse if you venture away from the super large tourneys.  

So, feel free to call me out on this, but isn’t TMD a website for competitive tournament play, or did I miss the memo about it being for New England Proxy Tournament only competitive play? Why should we be willing to only discuss your meta-game, or the meta-game that you feel is appropriate? I think that this is a fair question, and one that eventualy delves into the very heart of the existance of this website.

I would contend that your singular meta-game actually contains 3 distinct categories in and of itself (5 proxy, ten proxy, and unlimited) and that it is therefore unfair, unwise, and fairly narrow minded of you to dismiss discussion on what is essentialy a forth catagory, the zero proxied meta-game.

I would love to work towards a common format wide meta-game. It is true that this community has made leaps and bounds since I first started playing just two years ago, but pretending that the problem of fractured meta-games doesn’t exist is silly. After all, here is this international site that is prob the best place in the world to learn about type one, and we cant event agree on what we are teaching.

A good example of this would be the differences in TPS and DeathLong. Different meta-games have helped to create two very different but potent decks. Neither one would do anywhere near as well in each other’s meta-game, but both are very well built.  I honestly see this as a problem.

Do we have to really have to spend time discussing R/G Beatz? What about Parfait? What about 1.x Rock with Hymn as the only Vintage card?

I would say that if any of those decks suddenly start wining moxen, then yes, we DO need to talk about them, no matter what proxy system they use.  

The only way we will ever be able to create a true common meta-game, is to understand the meta-game as it is right now, and honestly that includes zero proxy. Not to mention the fact that a discussion of different meta-games (based on the numbers of proxies allowed) could be pretty helpful to anyone trying to tweak their deck for their local area or upcoming tournament.

*just a quick note, PLEASE dont look at this as an arguement about proxies, if thats all you see then I really belive you aren't looking hard enough.

also, its 4 am in the morning here, my mind wanders this late/early and I apologize for my disorganized format. I'll check it again in the morning, and if its too bad (un-readable/understandable) I will delete it myself.

=-carter

[jazzykat]

Idea: whenever a tournament report is written, the author should include not only the number of proxies but should try to include a gross approximation of the metagame or a link to the actual one.

A little more work, surely...but a much more useful report because after thinking about it, when I lived in New York, I normally didn't even look at some of the no proxy reports unless they were written by "celebrities" . Because they were putting stuff in their sideboards and maindecks to deal with random crap that I never saw (or saw so seldom that it wasn't worth dilluting my deck for)


I forgot where the thread was but I talked about the US European metagame and someone made one of the best points I have ever read. It was something to the effect that there is no one metagame + "more stuff that was really interesting"

[Anders Noer]

As a random sidenote, a small vintage tournament was held yesterday here in Copenhagen (same TO), with only 17 players showing up. This was a low entrance fee, low prize payout tournament (no proxies allowed).
Surprisingly, most of the decks that showed up were powered, and this top 8 was a lot less random, than the one mentioned in Zherbus's article.

The top 8:
Lars Birch - 4cc
Rasmus Nielsen - TPS
Thomas Iversen - FCG
Mourad "Juice" Krid - Stacker (with 2 maindeck SERRATED BISKELION!)
Dennis Nielsen - Stax
"Iron" Morten Øberg - 7/10 Split
Jacob Sørensen - Draw 7
Jacob Pawlowicz - U/W control/Phid

There were also some Meandeck Titan, Rector combo and FCG in the rest of the field. Only 2 decks were without power. about 2/3's were fully powered.

Quarters:
4CC beats FCG
TPS beats Draw 7
Stacker beats 7/10 split
Stax beats U/W

Semis:
4cc beats TPS
Stacker beats Stax

Finals:
Stacker beats 4cc

-----
The Biskelions didn't really do much
"Juice" tested them to see if they were any good against opposing goblins and other small annoyances. I think they failed that test, being sideboarded out most of the day or simply not making it into play... So no "new" tech here  
"...Serrated Arrows might make the cut next time though!" - Juice

[jpmeyer]

So, feel free to call me out on this, but isn’t TMD a website for competitive tournament play, or did I miss the memo about it being for New England Proxy Tournament only competitive play? Why should we be willing to only discuss your meta-game, or the meta-game that you feel is appropriate? I think that this is a fair question, and one that eventualy delves into the very heart of the existance of this website.

I don't know what works in the say, White Weenie, Rock, Affinity, Parfait, Ankh Sligh, Suicide metagame (and I doubt neither does anyone else here,) so I don't know how to give you any useful advice.  Furthermore, this doesn't help anybody else.

All of the people that were around on BDominia back in 2000-2001 know all about this.  Someone posts a list, all anyone can really say is "looks good I guess", and that ends up being the end of that.  And most importantly, because of the expensive cards being unavailable, many people can't really change up their decks in any meaningful way and therefore it becomes quite difficult for anyone to be able to experiment or even to need to experiment.

[Royal Ass.]

Okay, so lets avoid the whole proxy debate, which is just beyond stupid because the facts are the facts and the people have spoken, and just focus on the notion that the Vintage metagame is "unproductively/dangerously splintered." -Flair

I agree with this 100%

Nataz- Your post does an amazing job at articulating what I am trying to get across.
I especialy like this quote:

"I would love to work towards a common format wide meta-game. It is true that this community has made leaps and bounds since I first started playing just two years ago, but pretending that the problem of fractured meta-games doesn’t exist is silly. After all, here is this international site that is prob the best place in the world to learn about type one, and we cant event agree on what we are teaching. "-nataz

Jazzykat-
Idea: whenever a tournament report is written, the author should include not only the number of proxies but should try to include a gross approximation of the metagame or a link to the actual one.

This is a good Idea and a step in the right direction

I want to get back to something that Rick Flair stated in his last thread and JP touched on, and that is, what metagame should this site be catering to?

I agree with Flare that it should be catering to the best metagame available, and I agree that a proxied metagame is the probably the best.  However this doesn't do anything to remedy the major fractionalization and uninification of the format.  Im not trying to be Garibaldi here, but I just think either one of two things needs to happen.  

One scenerio is that proxy rules stay the same and the global vintage community just does a better job at interpreting tournament data and expressing the fact that type one will never really be a clear and succinct format.  I feel that this would be a sad scenerio, because in this situation type one will never reach its full potential as a respected format due to fractionalization and confusion.  People plaing other formats will look at type one and see it as just a bunch of regional clusters of players making up there own regulations as to how the format will be played.

The other option is one of unification.  I'm not even sure if this is a viable option, or If the ManaDrain even has the means to make something like this come about.  But if there was any institution that had the ability to do this (and it looks as if Wizards isn't concerned with the breakdown of vintage), I belive that this would be the best place to explore that route.  

With the second option, I'm not going to sit here and dictate what I believe it would look like (how many proxies etc.) because I don't yet have an opinion on that and it would only cause confusion in this conversation which I want to keep focused on the more basic principle of fractionalization.

With respect to finding some way to unifying type one I feel that it could possibly be done through this site.  The Manadrain has proven in the past that it has leverage power over some of the decision making that goes on through Wizards action on type one (restrictions, 1.5 format changing, etc.).

I'm going to leave this discussion here and make one last statement to the moderators or people who are entrenched within the East Coast proxy scene:

This is your website.  You ultimatly dictate and control the discussion of what takes place here.  Most likely you don't have an immediate incentive to change the global rules concerning type one as for the most part your geographical  meta will remain the same.  I feel this is a flawed mentality as it would hurt type one in the long.

If you feel that the ideas expressed here in this thread are radical, overly political, whining etc.  You have the prerogative to shut this thread down and end discussion, thus silencing a minority voice.  I would not be offended, as this site and what you have created with it is your brainchild and ultimatly belongs to you.  I would however be dissapointed to see what seems to be a good opportunity to unite type one being put to waste.[/i][/quote]

[Jacob Orlove]

I just want to chime in with a brief comment: Wizards does not look at card availability or deck cost when considering changes to the B/R list.

[Mr. Fantazy]

I forgot where the thread was but I talked about the US European metagame and someone made one of the best points I have ever read. It was something to the effect that there is no one metagame + "more stuff that was really interesting"

I think this is the thread you are thinking of:
European vs. US/NA Tournament Policy and the Metagame

The only reason I remember is I believe it is my post you are refering to ( at the time I was posting under Mage of Dreams ) but even if it's not, my thoughts at that time may be relevant to Royal Ass:

1. Is the US metagame more competitive due to allowing of proxies and the higher availibility of cards or are we just measuring competitive incorrectly?  

IMO trying to equate distant and diverse metagames is next to impossible. The differance between the Global, Regional, and Local metagame is extemely pronounced.

The Global metagame is the easest to predict. In a way this seems couterintuitive but the fact remains that it is. This is mostly because the Global metagame is almost purely hypothetical. By nature it is assumed that most players will be reasonably skilled and decks will be mostly optimal. The reasoning of card availability can be dismissed and decks are easily broken down into tiers. This would seem to be because on paper it's a relitively easy game to figure out.

The Regional metagame is a first step into reality. Regional metagames seem to be much more geared towards archtypes. For example, as a general rule the Europeans seem to play much more combo then the US. Likewise the East Coast runs heavier control and prison while the West Coast trends towards a more aggro style.
My first sence of this came some years back while living in Utah. At that time it was common to do very well with tuned "rogue" decks against the decks coming in from Nevada or Cali. However these decks just fell flat when played in other areas.
At the Regional level more focused info begins to filter in, # of proxies, real time test results that factor likely play skill, card choices and availability, etc. while still using alot of "it works on paper" logic still prevelent. Regional metagames trend with the Global metagame with some cool innovation thrown in as well as the occasional surprise.

The Local metagame is where reality takes the steering wheel. This is where actual player skill, deck choices etc. really count. It is also the place where "tier 1" decks fall to WW and Sui on occasion. In my observations this usually happens at one of two times,

1. A sudden shift in archtypes. Usually the new archtype being played is not quite optimized yet, and the players are still working on playing the deck. It's at times like this when consistant aggresive decks can win thru to the T8.

2. The Local metagame becomes so inbred with one or two decks that they are basicly built to beat each other and themselves. At times like this these decks haven't had to deal with alot of other types of threats and have cut cards to make room for answers to themselves.

These windows tend to very short, but when they appear you can rack up the wins with "loser" decks.

Too often it seems that threads get out of hand when posters are talking about metagames because there is usually no "compass" as to which one we're talking about. Local metagames tend to lean towards the Regional decks to beat, but are often totaly random.

2. Are one line posts saying card/deck x or y sucks indirectly discouraging inovation? This of course would indirectly lead to a more powerful metagame.

 

Now tell me, do you need more than one line to say Twiddle is bad? Or do you need to write a full length discertation?

In my opinion saying a card is bad is a very constructive attitude - constructive in the sense of reducing scrubiness in the metagame.  

Second, "innovation" is a buzzword people use to cover the "I'm gonna prove myself a genius deckbuilder or die trying" mentality.  

Yes and no. Again it depends on what metgame your talking about. On a Global scale, card A, isn't worth the cardboard it's printed on. Regionaly it has been considered and dismissed. Locally, card A is uber tech!

The first thing I thought of when I saw this question was Matt Place needing to be payed to play Stasis in the middle of Black Summer, because it sucked so bad. Who knew??!!

I think alot of the time people who don't understand that their local store is a microcosom end up getting the one liners. Of course at Danny's Cards and Diner they'll trade you 3 FoW and 1 DoJ for your 1 Savannah Lions cause the cats rule down there in the bayou.

[Royal Ass.]

Mr Fantacy-  

I agree that regional metagames are healthy to have.  Regional metagames would still exist in a universal meta that has uniform proxy rules.  Right now we have regional differience in meta for multiple reasons.  One of the reasons is because of proxy rules.  I see this is as a problem.  Regional differience shouldn't exist because of card availability but should exist because of other factors such as the mind set of the players in the area or regional deck trends, or appropriate metagame choices where certain decks lose or win favor.  All of these differience rest upon the players, not on availability of cards.

When you have regional differiences that come about by card choices it becomes inherantly difficult to decipher why certain metas exist the way they do.    You can never pinpoint or understand the decision making process that goes into making a deck if there is always the possibilty that completely arbitrary deck making decisions had to be made by the creater due to card availability or unavailability.


Orlove- I agree with your point that Wizards doesnt look at card availability or cost when considering a card for banning.  That would be arbitrary and lead to nonsence choices.  Card cost should never be a arguing point for restricting a card (except for maybe in 1.5).

[Anders Noer]

The other option is one of unification.  I'm not even sure if this is a viable option, or If the ManaDrain even has the means to make something like this come about.  But if there was any institution that had the ability to do this (and it looks as if Wizards isn't concerned with the breakdown of vintage), I belive that this would be the best place to explore that route.

As I see it, Wizards Of The Coast pay a lot of attention to vintage. It wasn't used to be like that, but in the last year or so vintage has exploded. About 1/3 of the articles on SCG are covering vintage issues and magicthegathering.com even had an article or two about the format (co. Smmenen).

More people than ever have an understanding of the format and I'm sure that Wizards follow these trends as well.
Wizards obviously aren't making money, caring about vintage as card sales in this format are from store owners and individual persons. None of the 400$ for power cards go to their original creators. There's no profit for them at all...

Card availibility makes larger events such as "PTs for vintage" and the like impossible, since Wizards would never (and should never) allow sanctioned proxy events. It is against the spirit of their TCG-concept.
I think it is naive to say that Wizards still don't pay attention to the vintage format. The last restrictions and unrestrictions have made sense and I think they feel an obligation to do their best at keeping this format alive and thriving. They created it and need to nourish it.

Thus i can't really see any unification happening any time soon, as some metas favor proxy events and others favor sanctioned. I won't be the judge of which is better. If you wanna go with proxies I think it should be 100% proxies allowed (you wanna play the best decks right? 100% proxies allows that. 5 or 10 does not - Not for the 15 year old sitting across from you anyway; He could really benefit from a limitless proxy boost...). On the other hand, sanctioned events will only allow the second best decks to compete and the rich kids will own the poor ones.. Not fair at all.

I think the sanctioned crowd and the proxy crowd can still both benefit from eachoters top8 lists and strategic decisions. [/tangent]

The Manadrain has proven in the past that it has leverage power over some of the decision making that goes on through Wizards action on type one (restrictions, 1.5 format changing, etc.).

I'm sure TMD has some influence on what Wizards decides to restrict or unrestrict, but don't overestimate our power. A "Restrict Workshop, yes or no?, Poll" in the vintage forum, doesn't make things happen. A long time of abuse and continually top 8'ing with workshop does... It's the results that make restrictions happen, not people whining about being run over by certain cards or hailing them as broken.

---

Besides this, I think your post is good and important Royal Assassin. We still need to discuss these issues to become better as a whole.

[jazzykat]

Mr. Fantazy:
Thank you, that is exactly the post I was thinking of!

[Ric_Flair]

You talk about proxy meta-games as if they were all alike. It’s as if you have made a division where there are proxy meta-games, and non-proxy meta-games, each with its defining characteristics. However, the truth of the matter is that it’s not that simple.

Two things.  In NE there is a general default principle: 5 proxy tournaments.  It is that simple.  So we can all develop decks with that idea in mind.  Second, even though 5 proxies lets people play most any deck, it does not, as people have noted, let everyone play every deck.  With the skyrocket in price of stuff like Mana Drains the 5 proxy rule is sometimes not enough.  The issueis that no meaningful analysis can be done of decks that have this or that missing in metagames that are bent towards this or that deck.  

Seriously, it is impossible for us to give meaningful advice on your Mono U deck, which, for example, is still missing Drains after the 5 proxy rule.  What if your deck was missing three Drains?  What if it was missing a Drain and an Ancestral?  And so on.  You get the point.  We must assume that people can make perfect or near perfect tier 1 decks in a five proxy environment because that is the only way to have meaningful discussion about the topic.  If we have to address decks with holes, your deck with specific holes, it becomes impossible to generalize.  Our testing data is useless because the decks are fundamentally different.  When you are missing a fetchland, that is one thing, but when you are missing 3 or 4 Drains, that deck is fundamentally different.  Only your playtesting in your metagame can help you.  You can use the ideal metagame as a starting point, but it is going to take some work to localize the deck and deal with its particular limitations.  That is all that can be said.

I understand that there is a big divide.  I get the point you and Royal Ass. are making.  But the fact is there is no way to deal with it except by each person with their own limited deck dealing with it and playtesting it.  We have no frame of reference.  And really that is what the ideal metagame is--a frame of reference.  

The tone of the this thread is what I have a problem with.  You cannot people to test your deck with your own personal limitations.  It is not going to happen.  Lobby for more proxies so that you can play closer to the ideal metagame.  There is nothing to be gained from asking those who can play in that metagame to stoop down to a lower level.  That is not the purpose of this site.  The best decks only.  It is hard for those that are financially limited, but as I have said before, I have more limits than most and I have made good.

[nataz]

Two things. In NE there is a general default principle: 5 proxy tournaments. It is that simple. So we can all develop decks with that idea in mind.

1) Even if your statement about the 5 proxy meta-game in NE was correct (its not) I submit that

So, feel free to call me out on this, but isn’t TMD a website for competitive tournament play, or did I miss the memo about it being for New England Proxy Tournament only competitive play? Why should we be willing to only discuss your meta-game, or the meta-game that you feel is appropriate? I think that this is a fair question, and one that eventually delves into the very heart of the existence of this website.

Just a quick list I made while looking at the Tourney page for 5 min

5 proxy
-Johnston, RI, 10/17
-Cape Cod Cash Tournament Sat, 10/30
-Gilbert, AZ October 16 for MOX RUBY(5 Proxy)
-Bazaar of Baghdad, Utopia Games Nov 7th
-11/06 Star City "Power 9" Tournament; Chicago, IL  
-10/23 "Power 9" Tournament Returns to Richmond, VA  
-October 17th akcomics


NOT 5 proxy
-Brockton, MA - Sat Oct 16
-T&T Collectibles Mox tourney Nov 20th
-11-13-04 - BETA BERSERK: CASTLE ROCK, CO
-Turin (Italy) 10/10/04
-west springfield MA 11-7-04
-waterbury
-TMD champs
-Stonebridge Games - Longmont, CO October 30th
-10/24/04. Type 1 Comes to Orlando Florida.
-HADLEY 10/9, we're back bitches!

Things to note off this list, and the tournament section in general

-NE has more tourneys then anywhere else
-5 proxy is the most common proxy rule overall
-5 proxy however does not make up the majority of the tournaments
-there are more NON-5 proxy tournaments in NE then there are 5 proxy tournaments. Hadley, Waterbury, Brokton, Springfeild, (Maine   ) all hold tournaments that do not fit into your meta-game.

The tone of the this thread is what I have a problem with. You cannot people to test your deck with your own personal limitations.

Its ironic you post that, because that is the way I feel about your earlier post. Normally I really wouldn't care about a thread like this, however the arrogance in your response kinds ticked me off. This site is NOT your own personal site for your own personal meta-game, and I do take offense at you insinuating that it is. I honestly thought you were better then that. (again, if I'm wrong about the whole thing about this site being for NE proxy meta-games, boy do I have egg on my face)

The truth of the matter is, that if you want to test for GenCon, Waterbury, the TMD Champs, or the majority of tourneys held in NE (or even my Maine tourney   ) your meta-gaming is flawed.

I'm not asking you to test random decks, Im asking you to test decks that win. Certain decks may do better in different meta-games, but just because they dont fit your meta-game (5 proxy) it dosnt mean we should ignore them. My examples that I used earlier were exagerations, but I am serious when I say that its certainly possible to build a well known  deck (say, CS) significantly different (with AK/Intuition instead of TFK) to account for differnt meta-games.

Again, all that I'm trying to say is that its almost like there is not such thing as type one. Its more like type I (w/o proxy), Type I (w/ 5 proxy), Type I (w/ 10 proxy), Type I (w/ unlimited proxy). Its this that I think helps to account for the relatively huge amounts of decks both accepted (and called "viable") in our format, and in the top 8's of the different power tourneys.

Maybe the reason why we cant solidify the number of decks in our format into smaller numbers is exactly because of this tiered meta-game. I think it might be, and for an example I again list TPS and Deathlong. Both are kinda alike, but at the same time play very different because of the meta-games they exist in. Deathlong may be a better choice for a proxied meta-game (i.e., the states/NE) but does that mean we should stop looking at TPS altogether?

Eh, either way, this is getting silly. I’ve written far too much on a subject that should be obvious.

Things that would be interesting to know, but that I probably will not take the time to look into until I start testing for my next big event.

-# Of proxies vs. time. Are events overall allowing more and more proxies, and if so, is 5 really the mode? Is the trend static (or correcting to) at 5 proxies, or is the trend moving up/down.
-Effect of proxies on top 8's
-Effects of regional top 8's and proxies
-Most commonly proxied cards

[Ric_Flair]

Brockton, Waterbury, TMD champs, and Hadley were all 5 proxy events.  The only major event in the entire US that is not 5 proxy is Gen Con.  Origins is also not 5 proxy but they are not major tournaments.  Waterbury and SCG's events are all 5 proxy.  Sorry, but this factual error sort of ruins the rest of your post.  I'll address it anyway, but you need to understand how wrong you are.  Get the facts straight before you come after me.  I have made sure that I have posted facts.  I go back and correct my posts.  I even point out when I am wrong (I even started a thread about what not to do when posting).  So you need to do the same and check the facts.

Im asking you to test decks that win.

If a deck can only win in a non proxy metagame, it is not worth testing, unless most of the decks in that metagame are near ideal versions of major decks.  It is just a fact.  I am not going to spend my time testing R/G Beatz that wups up on U/W decks still running Moat.  I will never face those decks.  So until the Beatz deck can be tuned to beat the current tier 1 decks in the ideal metagame it is not worth my time.

Again, all that I'm trying to say is that its almost like there is not such thing as type one.

Go watch the video for the last Waterbury.  It is pretty clear that there is a well defined metagame.  This same metagame was fed by SCG's tournament and then in turn fed the NY tournament in Endicott.  Gen Con factors in there as well.  There is clearly a coherent, though diverse, metagame in Vintage.  The unfortunate thing is that in places were proxies are not allowed, this metagame is aspirational at best.  Everyone knew going in to the last Waterbury that Welder was the key card, and as it worked out, it was.  The tech designed for the tournament worked, and as it should be, was superceded the next week.  Just because you don't experience the metagame doesn't mean that it is there.  

Perfect case in point.  WillieWonderboy came from Columbus this summer and he and I played.  He plays in a infinite proxy meta and I play here in NE.  We both had similar ideas about the first tier.  We knew what tech was out there and what decks were working.  And we had never met.  Steve helps form the metagame.  So does Hadley.  There is a metagame, and it is closer to the idealized metagame than a proxy-less one.

[Kowal]

Brockton, Waterbury, TMD champs, and Hadley were all 5 proxy events. The only major event in the entire US that is not 5 proxy is Gen Con. Origins is also not 5 proxy but they are not major tournaments. Waterbury and SCG's events are all 5 proxy. Sorry, but this factual error sort of ruins the rest of your post.

Brockton was 9 proxies.
Waterbury was 10 proxies.
TMD Champs were 5 proxies with extras at a dollar.
Hadley is 10 proxies.

Sorry Tony, you're way off.

[serialjester]

I think Ric Flair is addressing the NE metagame because that's the one most relevant to him and in most cases, the most indicative of what the overall metagame would be if everyone owned power. Look at T2 forums, and there's a natural assumption that you own/can get the cards that are being discussed. This is a strange situation to push in a format where all the great cards are long out of print, but in the same manner it is natural to include discussion of the format in a way that assumes you have the cards. As has been noted, talking about Vintage without talking about power is a strange conversation, and another example is Fish in this metagame. It might be good, it might be great, but why would someone play it when they can play all the broken cards?

When decks are discussed, the one problem I've had is that too many rogue ideas are moved to newbie. I'm not talking about Suicide threads or WW threads either. However as I don't have moderator status, and I choose to play decks other than what are the mainstays of the format, I have to accept that people are going to be disbelieving and skeptical. No one has unlimited time to test, and there's enough information to absorb dealing with the known archetypes as it is, so the people dealing most directly with things are going to curtail deviations from that which aren't expressed in ways that make them serious contributions to the forums.

Has there been a crackdown on this from high above? No, which means that Steve approves of it on some level at the very least, maybe he totally approves of it. It makes no difference to Me, personally.

What I would like to see is people posting decks that are rogue/tech/whatever to advertise it. Especially since the focus has been on proxy vs nonproxy metagames, it should be noted by people who are building for nonproxy metagames somewhere in the beginning of the thread, if not in the title like is done with budget builds and the such.

The default metagame is always going to be fully powered, highly competitive decks or metagame decks that cash in on the weaknesses of powered decks. This implies proxies somewhere, unfortunate as it is. If you're building for a nonproxy metagame, make sure people know about it so you stand the best chance of being taken seriously in your choices, because the card choices of a nonproxy metagame are probably as alien to people in proxy metas as Vintage decks are to T2 players.

I also think too many people are trying to mold TMD into what they want. Take it for what it is, contribute as necessary, but leave your damn ego out of it.

I really can't say anything else on this subject without repeating Myself.

[nataz]

@ my fact checking,
I play in NE also, and I think you owe me an apology

I'll address it anyway, but you need to understand how wrong you are.  Get the facts straight before you come after me.  I have made sure that I have posted facts.  I go back and correct my posts.  I even point out when I am wrong (I even started a thread about what not to do when posting).  So you need to do the same and check the facts.

I was pointing out a fact. As kowal says, its you that’s clearly wrong. It is because you have this mentality that you are blinded in your view of the meta-game. I do not think that its any where near as well defined as you make it out to be for the reasons I stated.  

I am not going to spend my time testing R/G Beatz that wups up on U/W decks still running Moat. I will never face those decks. So until the Beatz deck can be tuned to beat the current tier 1 decks in the ideal metagame it is not worth my time.

The tier arguments are silly, because they are based on a meta-game that is non-inclusive. TPS prob would not be tier one in most NE events. Classic Gay Red might not be a good choice in many Euro events. This does not mean that they are not good decks, however I would argue that they are not Tier 1 out of their respective areas.

I'm not asking you to test anything, but be aware that others on this site do NOT have the same meta-game as you. I don’t care if Deck X is the worst deck in the world in a proxy metagame, a non-proxy meta-game, or a partial proxy meta-game, if it makes up 25% in YOUR meta-game you better prepare for it, and be aware of why its there. I would hope that TMD would help you prepare for it.  

I am really curious how some of the euro's on this site feel about this. Their meta-game is significantly different then ours, and ric's logic seems to think that therefore it is an invalid meta-game.  

Same applies for those who are running sanctioned tourneys. Thoughts?

@ the Waterbury video

Not only was I there myself, but I also have a copy of said video on my desktop (good job btw). If you are telling me that you could look at SCG and predict the meta-game for Waterbury I would call you wrong. I think its been made pretty clear that Zherbus and Shay did misjudge the meta-game. That was one of the points of Zherbus's article. Did you even read it?

I would suggest that this problem stems from too many decks in the format, which in turn comes from a meta-game that is not coherent enough. Its impossible to make sure you deck wins against CS, FCG, Dragon, 7/10, 5/3, GayRed, Mono-U, TPS, Stax, Belcher, DeathLong etc. I would argue that some of these decks exist merely as very good niche decks, that do well because of a specialized meta-game.  
 

=carter

[Zherbus]

Somehow, the discussion here is also applicable to another article of mine:

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7921

[Royal Ass.]

Zherbus-
After reading the article you just linked and keeping your September report in mind, it seems to me that you are the only one really trying to decipher or figure out what is going on, on global scale as far as metagames go.  The fact that your post in the Full Member forum has received Zero replies, but worthless hypothetical threads like "is null rod really good?" receive over 30 posts proves to me that the East Coasters don't really care about what is going on outside of their meta.  

I don't blame them for this, as it isn't apparently obvious why it would be healthy to have consistency within the format.  But as I've stated in my earlier posts it would be beneficial for many reasons.

I want to get the discussion back to what I originally was talking about, which was the September report.

The problem with all these reports over monthly metagames is that the data taken from them is inherently flawed because of the proxy discrepancies.  Imagine studying two stars in the solar system.  One adheres to the basic laws of physics while the other subscribes to a completely random set of laws that is unknown to us.  How can an Astronomer compare the data taken from the two stars if they both follow different basic laws of physics?  This is the same problem with Type One right now.

 We look at tournament data and try to figure out why 12% of the top 8 decks are Keeper, or why 8% is Control Slaver etc.  The problem is we can never really know why certain decks are more prevalent than others because we don’t know why the pilot of deck X decided to run the deck.  Did he or she make the decision because of card unavailability?  If so, than the decision was arbitrary and out of the players control.  

If this player was playing under conditions where they could reasonably run whatever cards they wanted, then they might have run a completely different deck.  Because of this situation, all of the tournament deck data is rendered completely worthless until you can figure out a way to show the viewer of the report how variations within different proxy ruled metagames affects the overall finding of the report.  I believe this is nearly impossible.  

The only way to give tournament data that actually means anything would to break the data down into smaller groups.  For example you could have the percentage of decks play in metagames that allowed 10 or more proxies.  Then you could give the data for tournaments that allowed only 5 proxies, and then the data from Sanctioned events.  That way you could actually try to figure out why certain decks are being played.  I guarantee you that 10+ proxy tournaments would have more people playing workshop or Bazaar decks than zero proxy or even 5 proxy.

Zherbus-
Does what I’m saying here make any since or am I completely off my rocker here?  It seems like it does and I feel that is what you were beginning to realize with your last report.

Flair-  I agree with what you are saying in a lot of instances, but you are looking at the situation with too narrow of a scope and getting too defensive.  I’m not knocking the East Coast metagame.  I feel that it is the most advanced and balanced there is right now.  This is in large part due to the number of people living in close proximity on the East and because of proxy rules.  But is the guy who says that a no-proxy meta is the best, most advanced and balanced meta necessarily wrong?  No, it’s just a difference of opinion.  However, I agree with you that proxy is the way to go and would love to see that system universalized.  Whether or not that will happen sometime soon, I don’t know.  There doesn’t seem to be too anyone other than me and some other “outsidersâ€? on this site vocalizing this issue.  With that being said, the least we can do is try to interpret the data the best we can giving the confines of the global framework we live it.  That’s what I was talking about above ^^^^^.

[Ric_Flair]

@nataz

was pointing out a fact. As kowal says, its you that’s clearly wrong. It is because you have this mentality that you are blinded in your view of the meta-game. I do not think that its any where near as well defined as you make it out to be for the reasons I stated.

The thing is I think that Brian was using irony to point out that I was EVEN more right than I was claiming.  Obviously it the truth lies closer to what I was saying if there are more than five proxies.  The point stands--there are more proxy events than you counted.  This, in turn leads to what I was talking about in the idealized metagame.

The tier arguments are silly, because they are based on a meta-game that is non-inclusive. TPS prob would not be tier one in most NE events. Classic Gay Red might not be a good choice in many Euro events. This does not mean that they are not good decks, however I would argue that they are not Tier 1 out of their respective areas.

While there is a being of region bias the fact that Steve's highly metagamed Mono-U deck went 6-0 at Gen Con and has done well in other tournaments, look at Kowal at Waterbury, points to the fact that there is a well defined metagame, one that supports technology quite well across a wide geographical area.  

Let's look a little closer at the facts.  My contention is that the metagame from SCG fed into the most recent Gen Con, which in turn fed into Waterbury.  

At SCG Fish was huge, placing many people in the Top 8, keeping Tog in check.  This in turn led to the upswing in Aggro Workshop and the Mono-U deck which crushes Fish when the Chalice is set to 1.  This in turn led to DeathLong and Control Slaver, held in abeyance by Fish's Null Rods, being used again.  

The support of this comes in the form of which decks did well in the Top 8(like Aggro Workshop as a foil to Fish), the prevelance of certain cards (like Tinker/Colossus as a foil for Null Rod and Fish), and sideboard cards (like Mogg Salvage as a solution to Fish's Null Rod and Aggro Shop's Trinisphere).  Note that Salvage is a two strike answer, answering the metagame dominant deck coming into the event and the answer to that deck.  If that is not a sign of metagaming for a well defined, near universal metagame I don't know what is.  Maybe the Old Man of the Sea or the Lava Dart's in Rich's SB.

Their meta-game is significantly different then ours, and ric's logic seems to think that therefore it is an invalid meta-game.

My big point, which holds true for any metagame and which is the same point that Zherbus made in a previous article, is that without proxies or a near perfect amount of power the results of that metagame are very, very suspect.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that the results are pretty useless.  For a long, long time SuperGro and GAT were doing well in Europe when they were tanking here in places with idealized or near idealized metagames.  The reason was that SuperGro is a deck that can operate with a minimal amount of power and still operate at roughly the same level.  It could not, during that era, necessarily compete with other decks that fully exploited power.  So it was sort of a one eyed man is king of the blind effect.  Non-proxy, non-idealized metagames are not useless, but they are about as informative as Limited is for Block.  In other words, they can help show you cards that could be good, but very few things carry over.

I think its been made pretty clear that Zherbus and Shay did misjudge the meta-game. That was one of the points of Zherbus's article. Did you even read it?

Maybe you can go take back Rich's Lotus for being such a fool and misjudging the metagame.  Maybe you can go explain to him how bad a deck Control Slaver is to run in a format where Aggro Shop has pushed Fish out of the top tier.  Maybe you can go tell Rich how awful the metagame choice of Lava Dart was, the card that won him the tournament.  Maybe you can go tell him that there was no universal metagame and that his main deck Blood Moons to shut down Shops were a bad idea.  Maybe you can go make him say uncle by telling him that the Old Man of the Sea was a bad idea because, given the splintered metagame you so vehemently believes exists, there was no reason to board for Fish.  

Zherbus misinterpreting the metagame is another thing, but Shay's deck is a clearly an indication that a master player CAN read the Vintage metagame and build his deck accordingly, then win big because of it.  

And yes I read Zherbus's articles.  It is a regular habit.

Finally, if you think that Rich's success was a fluke look at other metagame beaters that have done well recently:  Steve's Mono-U, Mark Perez's Fish winning two consecutive major tournaments, and going back to last Gen Con: Carl's well designed metagame weapon of Tog.  

I am just not sure how much more factual evidence needs to be marshalled to convince you of something that many, many people in many different places have profited from--there is a metagame in Vintage that is relatively well known and unproxied metagames have little to do with it.

@Royal Ass.

But is the guy who says that a no-proxy meta is the best, most advanced and balanced meta necessarily wrong? No, it’s just a difference of opinion

I am not sure it is an opinion.  I will assume the following:  
1) The best metagame is one that is balanced among the best decks.
2) Metagames are best when the decks included are as good as they could be.
3)  Decks are as good as possible when there is no card missing, for any reason.
4) Any reason includes financial ones.

Therefore: A format in which every deck could use any card it wants means that format is better than a format where no proxies are allowed, thus limiting deck design because of financial limitations.  If a format with infinite proxies is better than one without proxies, a format with some proxies must still be better, though less so, than a format with no proxies.  

It is beyond dispute that allowing proxies alleviates one of the strains on building the best decks--financial reasons.  Without the proxy rule people are either building decks that are inferior because of lack of availability or people are building ideal decks with full power.  I know of few people that fall in the last camp and therefore for the rest of us the proxy rule is a good thing that makes a better format.  

It is not a matter of opinion.  It is a fact.  More proxies makes for a more competitive format.  But that is not your point, or at least it wasn't a while ago.  You talked about the splintered metagame because of the lack of proxies.  I understand that you believe no proxies limits the metagame and that is true, but you have to realize that proxies have become the exception and not the rule, especially in mid to large sized tournaments other than the one Wizard's sponsors.  Also realize that when the format is limited to a few handful pieces of power across a huge number of players that format is so different from what the idealized format is like.  Power is so crucial, so necessary, that without it the decks are just not the same.