Comments on the Zherbus Report.

[Royal Ass.]

@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.

Dude, Seriously.  Are you reading my posts.  I think you have selective reading.  Just look at the next sentence of the quote you quoted me on:

"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."

The first part of the quote wasn't my opinion, I was just making a point that other opinions are valid other than your own.  I belive John Stewart Mill said that in On Liberty.

I have agreed with you other times as well.

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.

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've agreed with you so many times on this issue but you keep ignoring that fact and arguing with me.  You took one part out of my post out of context, argued aginst it and then completely ignored all the important stuff that I was saying.

Please stop posting in this thread unless you are willing to follow the topic I started instead of just picking worthless arguments with people.

[nataz]

Eh,
Posting in a tread like this, with responses such as our can be as productive as banging your head against a very verbose wall.

-I have never argued that there is no broad meta-game.

-However, I still contend that major regional events can have a significant number of different decks in a top 8 because of a meta-game that is not very well defined.

-This lack of definition most likely has evolved from our current proxy system (zero, 5, 10, and unlimited), and the fact that there is no sanctioning body to govern said system.

-True, there may be a gross meta-game across the country, and even across the format as a whole, but it is nowhere near as well defined as it could/should be.

-The way I read your statement, Europe does not have a proxy system in place, does this mean that the results from Europe should be ignored? Hype around GenCon was huge, even before they announced that they would allow proxies. If no proxies had been allowed, should GenCon have been ignored?

-I never called Shay a fool, if anything I have a lot of respect for him. However, I do believe that his win relied heavily on his play skill, and less on his ability to judge the meta-game. How many workshops ended up in the top 8 at Waterbury? How many fish decks were there in the top 16?

You say SCG fed GenCon Fed Waterbury.
 
Well, since I doubt you will actually check, here is the breakdown.

StarCity Games Top 8

3 Fish
1 4C Control
1 GAT
1 Landstill
1 Aggro Prison
1 CS w/ Titian

GenCon Top 8

1 Control Slaver
1 5/3
1 belcher
1 Chains Stacker
1 MonoBlue Control
1 Stax
1 TnT
1 Gay Red

Top 16 Decks from Waterbury

1 control slaver
1 deathLong
1 Dragon
1 MonoBlue Control
2 Charbelcher
1 Meandeck Titan
1 TPS
1 Tog
1 GAT
1 Gay Red
1 Animal Farm
2 TNT-ish
1 Madness
1 4C control

[sarcasm] Wow, if this isn’t a sign of a consolidated meta-game, I don’t know what is. [/sarcasm]

Tony, if you would like to keep pretending that I’m only talking about the differences between proxy and non-proxy meta-games fine. If you would like to keep telling me that there is a great meta-game in type one, fine.

But sometimes you just have to step away from the wall, and that is what I am doing.

If anyone else has anything to say, cool, I'd love to hear it. If not, I’m sure that I have made myself pretty clear.


End of E-Penis
=-carter

[Smmenen]

@nataz:  Gencon was not Proxy.

@ all.

I tried to do my part to heal the divide in the format by writing a comprehensive article that was aimed at TOs.  

 http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=7149

I think it made an impact as Pete immediately changed the first SCG tournament from no proxy to 5 proxy.  I think that is a step in the right direction, but five proxies create new difficulties that aren't as apparant.

Five proxy tournaments do not create the even field that one would hope.  In fact, I think the sole benefit of five proxies is actually the retailers because it causes tournaments to be more accessible but not as level (with the exception of Fish over the summer).   The effect is to make type one prices go up.

[Ric_Flair]

@nataz:

True, there may be a gross meta-game across the country, and even across the format as a whole, but it is nowhere near as well defined as it could/should be.

I have never contended that the metagame is as developed as it could be.  There are two different things here:  a slightly underdeveloped metagame (what we actually have now) and this splintered metagame that you and Royal Ass. have been talking about.  

Hype around GenCon was huge, even before they announced that they would allow proxies.

If you have noticed I have been referring to either a proxy metagame or a near ideal metagame.  While Gen Con is no where near an ideal metagame, there was enough power present to make the top 32 pretty competitive.  That said, Waterbury and SCG tournaments have gotten more hype, have better prizes, and are the recipients of more analysis for the very reason that we don't have endure as much of the true crap present at Gen Con.  Less crap, more useful data.

[sarcasm] Wow, if this isn’t a sign of a consolidated meta-game, I don’t know what is. [/sarcasm]

The idea of a healthy metagame is not to have all the same decks, but to have decks that evolve to beat the current good decks.  I think if you look at the results you will see the evolution made possible by the metagame.  

Go back before the first SCG tournament, where Tog was dominant and then look at SCG:

There are three Fish decks which are great foil decks for Tog, hence the lack of Tog.  There is one Workshop deck which is a great foil for Fish, showing some metagame prep for SCG given that Perez won two major events between Tog's domination and SCG with Fish.  Titan is also a deck that is strong against Tog, especially with its 4 color propensities.  4C does well in many formats, but note that this version ups the count of Fire/Ice in the main deck as a nod to Fish's upswing.  That is tech right there.

Then on to Gen Con.  Fish, still the target deck of the format is suppressed by Aggro Shop, Stax, TNT, and Mono-U opening up the event for Control Slaver (which incidentally does not fair too well in a heavy Null Rod format, where only the best Control Slaver players can win over and over again).  Belcher, like 4c Control, can just win and as such will probably always be an outlier, unless the entire metagame is running Null Rod, which incidentally was not to strong in this metagame at Gen Con.

Gen Con then led directly to Waterbury, although there was some misinformation because of the very few idealized decks at Gen Con.  There is again a heavy Workshop influence, a great foil to the still heavily hunted Fish.  Fish's sole appearance is a sign that the metagame as adapted.

Tony, if you would like to keep pretending that I’m only talking about the differences between proxy and non-proxy meta-games fine. If you would like to keep telling me that there is a great meta-game in type one, fine.

Look, I am not trying to do anything other than comment and correct a misconception.  I will return to the same points I have been making repeatedly that neither you nor Royal Ass. are addressing:

1) There is a metagame in Vintage.
2) Metagames without proxies produce suspect tournament data.

@Royal Ass.

The first part of the quote wasn't my opinion, I was just making a point that other opinions are valid other than your own. I belive John Stewart Mill said that in On Liberty.

I am not disputing that other opinions are valid.  I am simply saying that the claim that non-proxy environments produce just as useful data is not an opinion.  It is a position, but it can be factually disproven.  If the goal is to make the best decks and use the best data to do so, data from events with less than perfect decks is less useful.  That is not an opinion.  It is an argument.  If you accept the premises (goal is to make the best decks and the best data is taken from tournaments with the most best decks) then the conclusion is necessary.  And that conclusion is that non-proxied metagames are inferior to proxied ones in terms of producing data useful for the goals of this site.

Please stop posting in this thread unless you are willing to follow the topic I started instead of just picking worthless arguments with people.

I think this is out of hand.  Telling someone to not talk is really rude.  I am on topic, as much as possible, given that you seem to agree with my conclusions but are trying to still make room for valid data from proxyless tournaments.  You can't have it both ways and that is all I am saying.  

We should start this over.  Nataz and Royal Ass.  concisely state your positions and we will begin from the begin.  My position is simple.  I stated it above:

1) There is a metagame in Vintage.
2) Metagames without proxies produce suspect tournament data.

Let's focus this thread or mods should close it.  You guys have been all over the place.

[nataz]

@ GenCon
Wow, my bad. My wires were crossed, and I must have been thinking about SCG when I wrote that.

My points

1. A 5 proxy meta-game does not represent what an unlimited meta-game would look like. If we can discuss your imperfect meta-game, then we should be able to discuss Europe's imperfect meta-game. You have created a standard which I argue does not exist. I tried to point that out with a list of tournys in from our own forums. You ignored this.  

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!

2. further more, 5 proxy is also different from 10 proxy, zero proxy, and no proxy. See the example I provided about how different systems force different deck choices on a large number of the entries.  

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.

3. As an example of a splintered meta-game I present not only the top 8/top 16 decks from SCG Gencon and Waterbury, but also any other top 8 you care to look at. I'm not asking to have only one or two top decks, am am asking to have less then 16 or 20 top decks.  

-However, I still contend that major regional events can have a significant number of different decks in a top 8 because of a meta-game that is not very well defined.

-This lack of definition most likely has evolved from our current proxy system (zero, 5, 10, and unlimited), and the fact that there is no sanctioning body to govern said system.

-True, there may be a gross meta-game across the country, and even across the format as a whole, but it is nowhere near as well defined as it could/should be.

StarCity Games Top 8

3 Fish
1 4C Control
1 GAT
1 Landstill
1 Aggro Prison
1 CS w/ Titian

GenCon Top 8

1 Control Slaver
1 5/3
1 belcher
1 Chains Stacker
1 MonoBlue Control
1 Stax
1 TnT
1 Gay Red

Top 16 Decks from Waterbury

1 control slaver
1 deathLong
1 Dragon
1 MonoBlue Control
2 Charbelcher
1 Meandeck Titan
1 TPS
1 Tog
1 GAT
1 Gay Red
1 Animal Farm
2 TNT-ish
1 Madness
1 4C control

I would say that I have been pretty consistant in my veiws on this subject in this thread.  

Let's focus this thread or mods should close it. You guys have been all over the place.

cute

=-carter

[Zherbus]

1. A 5 proxy meta-game does not represent what an unlimited meta-game would look like. If we can discuss your imperfect meta-game, then we should be able to discuss Europe's imperfect meta-game. You have created a standard which I argue does not exist. I tried to point that out with a list of tournys in from our own forums. You ignored this.

As the sparkplug who got proxy tournaments started, let me provide some history. Originally, we started as allowing proxies of the power 10. The amount of people who own anywhere from 1-4 pieces of power is actually quite amazing, so when Hadley followed suit with proxy tournaments, they eventually allowed 5 proxies after a few tournaments which became the standard. While 5 proxies "punished" those who owned nothing, it was more flexible for people who might only own 4 power card or who might need to proxy Workshops, Bazaars, or Masks.

The big advantage to this 5 proxy rule was that it still attracted new type 1 players (which you may be way too new to the scene to remember the minute amount of players and type 1 events only 3 years ago), while still keeping the store owners who ran the events in the singles market.

The way to look at proxy tournaments is this:

With unlimited proxies, you get no deck building hinderances. We're not here to talk about why they are good or bad, but the effect they do have. With no hinderances, you'll naturally see more "Decks to Beat". The top 8 would likely look like this:

Powered Deck #1
Powered Deck #2
Powered Deck #3
Powered Deck #4
Powered Deck #5
Powered Deck #6
Powered Deck #7
Hate Deck #1

With 0 proxies, you're either so limited or have such a gross advantage over people who are limited. With 0 proxies, the power level of the environment is really dictative over what performs.

Are we in a 20 person metagame with 2 powered players? Then you'll see less hate budget decks and the top 8 will almost always look like (in no order):

Powered Deck #1
Powered Deck #2
Budget Deck #1
Budget Deck #2
Budget Deck #3
Budget Deck #4
Budget Deck #5
Budget Deck #6

Are we in a 40 person environment with 15 people being powered? You'll see more hate decks and have a top 8 looking more like this (again, in no order):

Powered Deck #1
Powered Deck #2
Powered Deck #3
Powered Deck #4
Powered Deck #5
Budget Deck #1
Hate Budget Deck #1
Hate Budget Deck #2

Or are we in some place like Italy where you have like 200 players, with probably 40% being powered? Budget and Hate decks can't do that well over too many rounds, so they naturally drop off below the T8 cut off.

Powered Deck #1
Powered Deck #2
Powered Deck #3
Powered Deck #4
Powered Deck #5
Powered Deck #6
Powered Deck #7
Hate Deck #1

With 5 or 10 proxies, it's like you bought every player 5 (or 10)powercards and let them build off that. Now if you count people with 1-4 power cards as unpowered, you close the gap from the 2 out of 20 example (or 4 out of 40) and the 15 out of 40 example. On any given 40 Person tournament, you'll have 15 people who are now fully powered or really damn close and a bunch of people who can now opt to try and make 5 proxies work in a powered deck (via watering down the deck or borrowing power from another player since the loaner can proxy a loaned mox) or opt to make a powered version of a budget deck (see Fish and FCG).

With every deck packing power and there being far too many powered decks to effectively hate against (beyond slapping Null Rods in your deck and hoping for the best), the number of hate decks will naturally drop to the point where it's not a steady occurance of hate decks to appear in the top 8.

Here, in an average 40 person (5 or 10 -proxy) metagame, the t8 looks remarkably like:

Powered Deck #1
Powered Deck #2
Powered Deck #3
Powered Deck #4
Powered Deck #5
Powered Deck #6
Powered Deck #7
Hate Deck #1

Without nitpicking about whether there's more control, aggro-control, metagame decks, or combo decks, a partial proxy event would yield results that are most compatable to:

Other partial proxy events
Full Proxy Events
0-proxy events with a high powered to non-powered ratio.
Semi-relevancy to 0-proxy event with a medium powered to non-powered ratio.

A 0-proxy event with a low powered to non-powered ratio would be compatable to:

Other 0-proxy event with a low powered to non-powered ratio.

Semi-relevancy to 0-proxy event with a medium powered to non-powered ratio.

A 0-proxy event with a medium powered to non-powered ratio.

Other 0-proxy event with a medium powered to non-powered ratio.

Semi-relevancy to 0-proxy event with a low powered to non-powered ratio.
Semi-relevancy to 0-proxy event with a high powered to non-powered ratio.

Since the compatability of proxy events has more event types than many 0-proxy events, it becomes the standard by default. Since we have a standard, we as a community have concentrated our dicussions around this standard.

StarCity Games Top 8

3 Fish
1 4C Control
1 GAT
1 Landstill
1 Aggro Prison
1 CS w/ Titian

GenCon Top 8

1 Control Slaver
1 5/3
1 belcher
1 Chains Stacker
1 MonoBlue Control
1 Stax
1 TnT
1 Gay Red

Top 16 Decks from Waterbury

1 control slaver
1 deathLong
1 Dragon
1 MonoBlue Control
2 Charbelcher
1 Meandeck Titan
1 TPS
1 Tog
1 GAT
1 Gay Red
1 Animal Farm
2 TNT-ish
1 Madness
1 4C control

Those changes were less about proxies and more about metagame shifting.

SCG was all about Fish, (not because it was all people could afford, but that it was a great metagame call) which was prepared for, along with 4cControl in Gencon. Gencon's t8 showed a shift towards aggro, which was prepared for in Waterbury since only 2 out of 16 made the t16.

[Ric_Flair]

Zherbus, thanks for saying elegantly what I could not in too many, too long posts.  I think, if Royal Ass. and nataz are being honest, you have settled the debate.

@nataz:

A 5 proxy meta-game does not represent what an unlimited meta-game would look like. If we can discuss your imperfect meta-game, then we should be able to discuss Europe's imperfect meta-game. You have created a standard which I argue does not exist. I tried to point that out with a list of tournys in from our own forums. You ignored this.

I think Zherbus answered this when he said:

so when Hadley followed suit with proxy tournaments, they eventually allowed 5 proxies after a few tournaments which became the standard.

5 proxy is the standard.  Many people in NE with 5 proxies can make near idealized decks.  With 10 proxies or unlimited proxies everyone can make idealized decks.

I would say that I have been pretty consistant in my veiws on this subject in this thread.

I think you are mistaking a concretized metagame for the only kind of metagame.  What we have with the major events is an evolving metagame, which in my mind is healthier than a static game.  It is indicates true metagame effects, namely people preparing for known winning decks.

[Smmenen]

I want to be clear - on the record - that I do not agree with five proxies.

I think it produces a entirely new set of problems that zero proxies do not face in addition to the ones that zero proxies face.  It is just as distorting to creating a "whole" metagame as having no proxies.  I can elaborate if you want.

[Ric_Flair]

I hope nothing I said made you believe that I was trying to put words in your mouth Steve.  I too think that five proxies is flawed, but it is better than no proxies in terms of creating as good as metagame as possible.  I love the idea of infinite proxies.  Nonetheless, I think that 5 proxies is the standard right now.

The best way to prepare for TMD is focus on the top tier of decks, that is, those decks that have every card they would want.

[nataz]

I would like you to elaborate if you could. I've been looking at as much hard data as I can, but its pretty hard to find. The largest problem I am having right now is that I'm pretty much convinced (from a statistical point of veiw) that just top 8, or even top 16 deck lists are not enough to draw really solid conclusions about a meta-game.

[Smmenen]

In my experience, 5 Proxies drives out Combo.  It is in the no proxy or all proxy environments that Combo performs best.  It used to drive out Workshops, but that is changing.

Five Proxies makes Aggro-Contro, Aggro, and Control the easiest decks to build becuase you need the fewest proxies.  As a result, five proxy environments have a strong bias toward Aggro-Control as Aggro-Control, when well build, can often handle Aggro and Control.   Workshops are under played so strong answers to Aggro-Control aren't always there and insufficient people can play Workshops.

This isn't always the case, but if often is.  The January Waterbury and the very last SCG tournament are great examples of this to a certain degree.  Fish destroyed the last SCG tournament and the January Waterbury was essentially a fight between Aggro (Oshawa and madness), Aggro-Control (Gro, Togs, EBA and other shit), and Control (keeper and Landstill (often with white for decree).  What was in the finals was EBA and GAT.  Both those decks had beaten the field.  There was almost no combo or Workshops.  

In a proxy-less environment, there is often MORE incentive to play Combo as the playing field is far less balanced.  When your opponent doesn't have Moxen, that makes MeanDeath a far more attractive choice.  

The only point I'm making is that five proxies creates its own distortions just as no proxies does.  I think the way that generally, but not always. shapes out is a bias towards Aggro-Control.

I think 10 should be the standard, at the least.

[Ric_Flair]

As I said Steve, I agree with your sentiment about the appropriate number of proxies.  That said I have two questions:

1) Do you disagree with the notion that, at least right now, 5 proxies is the standard?

2) Don't you think that 5 proxies is better than 0 in terms of generating some useful metagame data?

[Smmenen]

I'm not sure that I can truly say that there is a standard atm.  There are probably 2/3s as many 10 proxy tournaments as there are 5 proxies.  There are obviously many more non proxies than proxied given Europe.  

2) Not really - if the non proxy tournament data is large enough.   The five proxy data produces its own distortions that make the data just as suspect as no proxy.  I suppose it probably depends what you are preparing for.  If you are preparing for a five proxy tournament, you should probably look at 5 proxy tournament data.  

The reason I qualify with large tournament data for non proxies is that once you hit a given threshold - say 40 people for non-proxy events, the chances that non-powered players (even if they are two or three to one in number) will make top 8 dramatically decreases.  Therefore, the best decks will still rise to the top.  I consider that closer to a 10 Proxy environment with a two round screen to get by the budget decks than I do a five proxy environment.

[Zherbus]

I'm not sure that I can truly say that there is a standard atm. There are probably 2/3s as many 10 proxy tournaments as there are 5 proxies. There are obviously many more non proxies than proxied given Europe.

I'll do some research. I think you are wrong here.

Not really - if the non proxy tournament data is large enough. The five proxy data produces its own distortions that make the data just as suspect as no proxy. I suppose it probably depends what you are preparing for. If you are preparing for a five proxy tournament, you should probably look at 5 proxy tournament data.

I would think that my above post presents a good arguement on the contrary.

[Smmenen]

I'm not sure that I can truly say that there is a standard atm. There are probably 2/3s as many 10 proxy tournaments as there are 5 proxies. There are obviously many more non proxies than proxied given Europe.

I'll do some research. I think you are wrong here.

Possibly - don't hold me to the 2/3rd quote - however, I think that there ARE a non trivial amount of 10 proxy OR MORE tournaments compared to the number of 5 proxy tournaments.

That's the relevant question.  Becuase the effect of 10+ proxies should be relatively similar.  I wouldn't be surprised if the number of five proxy touranments was no greater than 2:1 to 10+ proxies.  That seems a more realistic assessment.

Not really - if the non proxy tournament data is large enough. The five proxy data produces its own distortions that make the data just as suspect as no proxy. I suppose it probably depends what you are preparing for. If you are preparing for a five proxy tournament, you should probably look at 5 proxy tournament data.

I would think that my above post presents a good arguement on the contrary.[/quote]

I think it's just a matter of line drawing.

40 person may be too low of a cutoff.  Maybe it should be 50+.  At what point does thte number of hate budget decks start to filter out of the top 8 - probably around that point.  

I think it is in those 35 person events where you have
Powered 1
Powered 2
Powered 3
Budget 1
Powered 4
Hate  Budget 1
Hate Budget 2
Powered 5

That top 8 obviously isn't as useful as others.  But I think the overall tournament distortion of five proxies is staggering and should be recognized.

[Toad]

In a proxy-less environment, there is often MORE incentive to play Combo as the playing field is far less balanced.  When your opponent doesn't have Moxen, that makes MeanDeath a far more attractive choice.

That really depends on the metagame. Paris has proxi-less tournament. All the bests players are usually playing either a Workshop deck (Aggro or Prison, but including Trinisphere and Chalice of the Void) or a heavy Control deck. And the best unpowered players usually go for Fish. This is an horrible field for Combo, and in the end, in 6 tournaments, we only had 3 (I think) Combo decks that Top8ed.

Proxi-less metagame does not mean Power-less metagame. Duelmen, Paris and Italy usually have more than 50% of fully powered decks.

[Smmenen]

That's all true.  Which is why I'm hesitent to make generalizations.  I think the important point that I wanted to emphasize is that if one is trying to figure out what Type One would look like in an "idealized" metagame where everyone can more or less play what they want, five proxy tournament results should be viewed through a lens of the same skepticism (for different reasons) to the skepticism we apply to 0 proxy fields.

EDIT:
I was basing my assumption of the earlier stated 2:1 ratio on the fact that someone earlier in this thread stated that:
Brockton was 9 proxies.
Waterbury was 10 proxies.
TMD Champs were 5 proxies with extras at a dollar.
Hadley is 10 proxies.

I would like to see five proxies with extras at a dollar become the norm.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Without detailed information about how many players use the proxies available to them at each given event, and how many more their most-preferred deck would have needed, I have trouble making any generalizations.

A 5-px policy has two effects: making budget players able to play optimized, but still budget-constrained decks like Fish, FCG, UGmad or O-Stompy; and making partially powered players able to play as if fully powered. But we have absolutely NO data about how many people are in each category at each event. At some of the 0-px events in Italy, we have MaxxMatt's detailed reports of Power percentages, but even in that exceptionally well-known and recorded meta, we have no survey data indicating how many players altered their deck choices based on budget constraints, or felt that they were playing suboptimal underPowered decklists of an archetype. See how difficult it is to make substantial assertions about this stuff? :)

I'm inclined to treat 5-px as stictly better than 0-px because of the potential increase in the number of people who are making no budget adjustment to their deck choice, even if the deck choice bias of the tournament as a whole is still extant.

If Z is actually digging for a proportion of tournaments running a certain number of proxies, I would be surprised if the ratio is as lower as Smmenen's earlier estimates. My general sense is that 5-px is dominant, but I could easily be mistaken.

[Royal Ass.]

Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, I think one thing can be agreed upon (Thank you Simmenen), and that is that the number of proxies in an event can have an effect of what kinds of decks are chosen to be played.

Simmened used the example of 5 proxy leading to high levels of Aggro decks and low combo.

Now that we know this I believe tournament data reports need to be fixed to accommodate this problem.  Instead of lumping all the data from different proxy ruled tournaments together and looking at the results as if they all had the same proxy rules, we need to separate the data by proxy rules.  This is the least we can do in addressing the problem.  And I will be interested to see how the October reports take this into account.

Now we are getting into an "ideal proxy #" debate.  This is fine, and if a decision is agreed upon here on the Mana Drain there could be changes within the East Coast as to what the accepted norm is.  However until there is a universal rule, administered by Wizards, Europe and the Mid-West will be playing a different game of Magic than you guys on the East (like we are right now).

Once the Ideal number of proxies to produce the most healthy format is realized, I would like to see that number Universalized.  Wizards is the only institution that can do that, and I think that this site, along with possibly Star City Games are the best lobby groups.  (though Star City probably has a vested interested to keep proxy number at 5 due to monetary reasons)


As far as the Ideal number of proxies:  My personal feeling is each person should be able to proxy the Power 10 plus 4 cards of any name.  That way you could play a set of Drains, Workshops, Bazaars, or Masks.  I don’t think unlimited proxy would be best because I think accruing cards is an integral aspect to magic, and getting duals and other stuff can reasonably be done.


Thanks to everyone who has shown interest in this thread.  I like where the discussion is going.

[nataz]

I think the important point that I wanted to emphasize is that if one is trying to figure out what Type One would look like in an "idealized" metagame where everyone can more or less play what they want, five proxy tournament results should be viewed through a lens of the same skepticism (for different reasons) to the skepticism we apply to 0 proxy fields.

that was exactly one of my points that I was trying to get across, but it apparently was lost in the translation.

Also, since I was the one who picked up those numbers (the tourney data) from before I feel that I should elaborate a little on them.

All I did was find the first page or so of tournaments and listed what they had for a proxy system and then of course threw in the big three of Waterbury, SCG and GenCon. It was my version of a quick and dirty and done completely blind (I didn’t know what I would find untill I looked). It was to prove a quick point that the 5 proxy system is hardly as universal as it may seem to some people. I think I was able to do that fairly well, albeit with an admittedly small "n".

@ Zherbus, the problem I have with researching too far back is that my numbers that I have collected so far are showing a mobile trend. The further back you go, the more likely you will increase the number of 5 proxy tourneys because the 10 proxy/unlimited proxy is overall a much younger accepted idea. However, I bet if you start to plot this all out I you will see a final trend of

1. Start-zero proxy dominating (i.e., pre-proxy system)

2. Phase II the rise of the 5 proxy to increase awareness of the format (and to help boost sales of cards!)

3. Phase III (current) a transitional state where many est. 5 proxy events are now moving to 10+ or unlimited proxy in the US. Europe still bucks the trend of course. The reasoning being that now that there has been an exponential growth in players, those said players want a stable meta-game, which in turn calls for more proxy’s.

The long and the short is I'm not sure about any of this, there just isn’t enough data to make an absolute concrete statement. However, just looking at what is available really has only increased my gut feeling that not only do different proxy systems significantly change the meta-game from event to event, but it also screws up meta-game trends on a large scale à which in turn can lead to a regional and proxy system splintered meta-game.

There is more that I would like to say, but right now I'm still sorting though numbers, and oh yea, doing the whole school thing too. I might have more earlier next week, we'll see.  

=-carter

P.S.

Although I have always found Dr. S's and Zherbus's articles interesting, I have a whole new appreciation for them now.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

Regardless of what comes out of this discussion, I think one thing can be agreed upon (Thank you Simmenen), and that is that the number of proxies in an event can have an effect of what kinds of decks are chosen to be played.

Simmened used the example of 5 proxy leading to high levels of Aggro decks and low combo.

Now that we know this I believe tournament data reports need to be fixed to accommodate this problem.  Instead of lumping all the data from different proxy ruled tournaments together and looking at the results as if they all had the same proxy rules, we need to separate the data by proxy rules.  This is the least we can do in addressing the problem.  And I will be interested to see how the October reports take this into account.

Now we are getting into an "ideal proxy #" debate.  This is fine, and if a decision is agreed upon here on the Mana Drain there could be changes within the East Coast as to what the accepted norm is.  However until there is a universal rule, administered by Wizards, Europe and the Mid-West will be playing a different game of Magic than you guys on the East (like we are right now).

Once the Ideal number of proxies to produce the most healthy format is realized, I would like to see that number Universalized.  Wizards is the only institution that can do that, and I think that this site, along with possibly Star City Games are the best lobby groups.  (though Star City probably has a vested interested to keep proxy number at 5 due to monetary reasons)


As far as the Ideal number of proxies:  My personal feeling is each person should be able to proxy the Power 10 plus 4 cards of any name.  That way you could play a set of Drains, Workshops, Bazaars, or Masks.  I don’t think unlimited proxy would be best because I think accruing cards is an integral aspect to magic, and getting duals and other stuff can reasonably be done.


Thanks to everyone who has shown interest in this thread.  I like where the discussion is going.

1st of all: looks like SMMENEN needs his own spelling primer .

Jokes aside, though, I have thouroughly enjoyed watching this thread and am glad that some conslusions were able to be reached.

Although 5 proxy does create distortions, the decks are likely to be slighty more optimal than 0 proxy if not ideal.

The only way to have 0 distortion would be unlimited proxy, of course, but I think that most people believe that to be an unnaceptable standard (correct me if I'm wrong here.  I personally would have no problem at all with unlimted proxy as the standard.)  However, the p10 + 4 proxy system would in theory create very little distortion as I believe most Vintage players have access to staples such as duals, fows, fetches, etc, and the standard cards for their deck is welders, metalworkers, exalted, w/e.  It is certainly reasonable to require some small financial investement in cards.

As for seperating data from different proxy # events, this may seem like a good idea at first but in reality it shoots an already small sample size to hell.  Is the data on X # of proxies in any way relevant if there was 1-2 tournies in the month?  I don't think so.  It would be interesting to make divisions here, because, as mentioned, different # of proxies actually changes the entire format, but it's not statistically feasable without more data IMO.

[majestyk1136]

Of course it would be nice to have tournament data which is totally unadulterated by budgetary constraints of players, but that's never going to happen barring a couple of unlikely events.

UNLIKELY EVENT #1:  Wizards decides to sanction proxy tournaments.
                               
PROS: T1's popularity might explode, as suddenly people will be able to play partially powered decks with relatively little financial cost.

CONS: T1's popularity might not explode, as the limited supply of High-Quality T1 cards (FoW, Intuition, Duals) is stressed by an influx of new players.  The price of 1 FoW hits $50 and the T1 revolution strangles itsself by pricing people out of the market (again) and we're back to where we started.

UNLIKELY EVENT #2:  Wizards reprints Power.

PROS:  People are able to play plenty of power thereby getting us our results.

CONS:  Existing T1 players financial situations get ruined - unless - Wizards prices the reprinted product in such a fashion that it's nearly as expensive to buy packs to find power as it is to buy it straight up - or - they make the new power so ugly that the old stuff retains its value (I.E. Underworld Dreams)

UNLIKELY EVENT #3:  We all Quit playing T1 and Switch to 1.5

PROS: You'll finally get your unadulterated data.  Or will you???

Cons: It's not T1.  There also exists the possibility that somebody will come up with a deck that is truly obnoxious revolving around one rare/hard to find card that is legal in that format so it's price shoots up to the point of being unattainable.  Again, you're back to where you started.

The point is that inevitably the lack of supply of some of these cards is a limiting reageant upon this and any vintage format.  (If you people have taken chemistry you'll understand what that is)  Lack of availability and ultimately the Mortality of our cards are serious issues that have to be dealt with.

I'm afraid however that Wizards has gone ahead with a plan to ultimately do away with T1 and pretend that it was all just a bad dream of broken formats.  Their first step toward this was Creating the new 1.5 where ALL of the objectively broken cards are banned.  The problem with this idea of course is that if they intended to create a vintage format that they could attempt to run PTQs off they have seriously underestimated the effect that that would have upon the secondary market.  $50 Rev. Duals anybody?  How about the aforementioned FoW (legal in the new 1.5) ?  They will have just created a new format only to have it born into the shackles of financial constraint doom before it even takes its first breath.

What I'm saying is that it's unlikely that you're ever going to get your undiluted/unadulterated data Pip.  That's all.

[Dr. Sylvan]

What I'm saying is that it's unlikely that you're ever going to get your undiluted/unadulterated data Pip. That's all.

Oh, I think that much is obvious. That's part of what makes it fun.

This thread should avoid any discussion of events like reprints or sanctioned proxies, because at that point it's just ignoring their official, blatant messages.

Somebody mentioned splitting up the data by what proxy allowance each event makes. Unfortunately, there's not enough data to do that. In most months, there are just a few proxy and a few non-proxy events available, so compiling two or three Top 8s worsens the small sample problem that still exists when all events are pooled (a typical month has 5-9 events with 50+ players). In Zherbus' 30-49 player segment, the problem isn't number of events, it's incomplete reportage, because not that many TOs want to bother typing up the decklists for the Top 8 of a smaller event. Until we have a lot more to play with, I'm sticking to my position that data should be pooled and leave it as an exercise for the reader to judge which of the data they might want to pay less attention to.