T1 Theory: Type One Decks as Fruit in a seasonal metagame

[Smmenen]

T1 is an interesting format.  

For the most part, decks which once have done well never perform as well again.  Dragon did very well last Winter, but fails consistently to put up those numbers again.  Lots of decks rise to the occassion and then become "a thing of the past."   Psychatog was good for so long, but now its almost completely absent.  Fish was very good for a good 6 months and now is on the way out.

How might we come to view these changes?  I have developed a terminiology to describe these changes:

"Rotten" - a deck that was once ripe, but is now too old, past over ripe, and will leave a bad taste if your mouth if played

"Overripe - decks that are still very good and will perform well, but are past their peak.

"Ripe" - a deck's peak. It is when the deck is ready to be plucked and perform well.

"Immature" - decks which will some day be ripe, but they haven't reached peak potency.

I consider Fish to be either rotten or overripe.  Oath is probably overripe right now.  

What's the point of all of this?  I think the lesson is that any given deck is at its total peak the FIRST time it is played.  After that, it may remain ripe, but never as potent as it once was.  

In my experience so far though, there don't seem to be decks that come back - however that may change.  Mono Blue came back after a 2 year hiatus.  Workshop Slavery/7/10 could be on the verge of a new emergence after 6-10 months since their peak.  

What decks are rotten, overripe, ripe or immature?

[Grand Inquisitor]

Why does the evolution of a metagame need a fruit metaphor?

edit:  oh wait, fruit, I get it.

[Smmenen]

Not the metagame.  Specific decks.  Decks become ripe or whatever in a specific metagame.  The point is to try and pinpoint where a deck maybe in this life cycle in the metagame.  Additionally, it suggests to us that decks are strongest when they are new.

I would argue that Fish is Rotten, Oath is overripe, 5/3 is ripe, Stax is ripe/overripe, Tog is rotten/immature, mono blue is overripe, etc.   The reason Tog can be both rotten and immature is that the metagame will likely cycle back into a position where tog will once again be ripe.

[Grand Inquisitor]

Not the metagame. Specific decks. Decks become ripe or whatever in a specific metagame

I didn't say the metagame.  I said metagame evolution, which deals specifically with which decks are prominent/successful over a period of time.  The semantics are killing me.

The reason Tog can be both rotten and immature is that the metagame will likely cycle back into a position where tog will once again be ripe.

So the fruit analogy isn't really apt here, unless we're talking about a new 'season'.  This is so fruity.

[Phantom Tape Worm]

What a great thread!!  This reminds me of the ali g episode where Bruno (who is very fruity) is asking people which celebrities are hot or not this season.

"Leave them in the ghetto or train to Auschwitz"


Fish: "Leave them in the ghetto"
5/3: "train to Auschwitz"
stax: "train to Auschwitz"
4cc: "Leave them in the ghetto"
Oath: "train to Auschwitz"

[everythingitouchdies]

Not the metagame.  Specific decks.

I would argue that Fish is Rotten, Oath is overripe, 5/3 is ripe, Stax is ripe/overripe, Tog is rotten/immature, mono blue is overripe, etc.   The reason Tog can be both rotten and immature is that the metagame will likely cycle back into a position where tog will once again be ripe.

Rather than make a list and address each deck in a one line blanket statement, I will specifically address fish.

Fish is, by your terminology, rotten. It was a metagame deck in its ripe state, and its success was entirely on the premise that it could stick needles in the appendiges of that metagame. As awareness of the deck grew, and the influence of other decks (primarily workshop decks sporting COW and blue based control wielding the synergistic tinker for colossus) caused a sway in the metagame, it was pushed from its ripe state. Fish, now being answered and played around, became less of a metagame deck and more of a tempo deck, but in doing so it lost alot of its effectiveness. As other decks grew stronger, and as shifts caused the return of cards like back to basics to appear, fish slowly passed from the overripe state into the rotten state. The deck can no longer accomplish what it originally set out to accomplsih. All of its "fishguts" are layed out on the sidewalk and are rotting in the sun.

There was no way I could pass the opportunity to talk about rotten fish in this thread.

EITD

[Whatever Works]

To take the metaphor just a bit farther I guess you could continue the theme to the metagame. Whenever a new set is printed, or a new deck becomes "ripe," or a deck like fish suddenly becomes "over-ripe/rotten," it is a change in the metagame, or a change in season.

Oath = Over-ripe but in a way can be considered immature because the deck still has possibility to improve, or be "reborn" with different colors etc. that might make it viable through hate.

4cc = rotten, but that does not mean that skeletal scrying is any less powerful, and im suprized it hasnt been somehow fit into other decks.

5/3 = Ripe

Doomsday = Immature/Ripe, I guess you could call it immature because the deck still hasnt hit its full potential, or maybe it has but only in the hands of a few extremely talanted players. 8 rounds with this deck and not losing to a self made play error is easier said then done.

I like the fruit analogy, but it just doesnt seem right in some way...

[rozetta]

Immature
Affinity, Modular and Skullclamp-based decks (Suicide Virus) are immature.
I'd say Tendrils combo is somewhere between immature and ripe (I include Doomsday)
Parfait

Ripe
Stax, 7/10, 5/3 and Control Slaver are ripe.
Oath, or at least the surprise build is ripe to overripe, but metagamed versions should stay ripe for a little longer.

Overripe
Fish is Overripe to Rotten, depending on the metagame (although now Doomsday supercedes it as the budget deck of choice, it will continue to rot). Fish will continue to be played in non-proxy fields, since the people who play fish won't probably ever bother to get the few power cards needed to play Doomsday.
In this respect, FCG might be in a similar category.
I might lump Madness and Dragon here.

Rotten
Masknaught. Tog. 4cc.

[dicemanx]

Sorry, but this notion of labelling archetypes seems a bit silly.

Do players not know how to "adapt"? Do they just snatch a 6 month old decklist off the internet, see that it fails, and label it as "unplayable" or lower tier? Is everyone merely waiting for the big teams to innovate and move the format forward or otherwise dictate what the new "decks to beat" are? Does the T1 world revolve around NE, where if the deck is not played it is not considered good? The way that the mindless drones seemed to have latched on to Meandeck Oath, 5/3, and Titan might actually give the impression that those are the best decks in the format right now (apart from Meandeck Doomsday and Tendrils of course).

For example, I don't think that Fish or Hulk is dead (unless you mindlessly netdeck the dated lists, then sure), Keeper is still very much viable, and Dragon is still strong enough but is barely played. Landstill gets omitted *again* from just about every list of top T1 decks, but then again, if it doesn't appear in NE = it doesn't exist.

[Saucemaster]

For example, I don't think that Fish or Hulk is dead (unless you mindlessly netdeck the dated lists, then sure), Keeper is still very much viable, and Dragon is still strong enough but is barely played.

It's not so much that the "rotten" decks are dead or unviable as it is that if you're going to win with them, as you pointed out, you're going to have to tweak them or rebuild them pretty extensively in order to have a real shot at winning, and STILL you'll have to wade through alot of hate.  This is why Tog can be somewhere between "rotten" and "immature"--the deck isn't a bad deck, and in simple terms of the deck's power (without relation to a particular metagame), it is one of the best decks in the format.  But if Fish is everywhere and every deck is running 5 Strips, Back to Basics, Blood Moon, and Crucible, then to do anything with the deck, you're going to have to make serious changes.  Serious enough, in fact, that you have to wonder why you're still playing the deck at all, since you'll STILL be facing people who will know basically how your deck plays and how they can usually combat it.  In these cases it's almost always true that a different deck is just better in the metagame--Control Slaver, for example, more or less took Tog's place for awhile, because it fills a similar place in the metagame while wearing a helmet to guard against the metagame conditions that kicked Tog right in the head.  And, of course, because Tog's "objective" strength is still there, once the decks that were kicking it in the head are taken down, it can always get back up again.  The metagame isn't there yet, but it looks to be leaning in that direction, as more and more decks that are more or less immune to non-basic hate push the haters out of the field.

The important question implied by this schema, I think, is whether it's worth it to tweak an existing deck that everyone's prepared for in order to try to beat the hate, or whether it's better to just switch to another deck entirely.  If the changes necessary to beat the hate are incredibly minor, that's one thing, but the strength of the hosers available to us in Vintage makes that relatively unlikely.  Just because you CAN beat the hate doesn't mean you should be trying.  Why not just switch to a new deck, or a forgotten old one, and pwn everyone all at once?

[Smmenen]

Sorry, but this notion of labelling archetypes seems a bit silly.

Do players not know how to "adapt"? Do they just snatch a 6 month old decklist off the internet, see that it fails, and label it as "unplayable" or lower tier? Is everyone merely waiting for the big teams to innovate and move the format forward or otherwise dictate what the new "decks to beat" are? Does the T1 world revolve around NE, where if the deck is not played it is not considered good? The way that the mindless drones seemed to have latched on to Meandeck Oath, 5/3, and Titan might actually give the impression that those are the best decks in the format right now (apart from Meandeck Doomsday and Tendrils of course).

For example, I don't think that Fish or Hulk is dead (unless you mindlessly netdeck the dated lists, then sure), Keeper is still very much viable, and Dragon is still strong enough but is barely played. Landstill gets omitted *again* from just about every list of top T1 decks, but then again, if it doesn't appear in NE = it doesn't exist.

Landstill doesn't appear anywhere.  Not just the NE.  I have played in something like 8 tournaments of 50 or more players this year and Landstill was only played by more than like 2 players that I knew of at the Waterbury in January.  I don't know why you are obssessing with the NE.  If anything, it is the Midwest that is driving tournament data right now with Chicago and Gencon and also the south with SCG VA.  

As for Fish or Hulk being "dead" - you missed the whole point.  no deck is dead.  A rotten deck will someday become immature and then ripe.  It is a cycle - a loop.  The trick is figuring out where a deck is on that loop.

[Zherbus]

Yeah, honestly I don't see why the NE gets singled out here. Landstill hasn't done much anywhere lately (as in the last 6 months).

[dicemanx]

As for Fish or Hulk being "dead" - you missed the whole point. no deck is dead. A rotten deck will someday become immature and then ripe. It is a cycle - a loop. The trick is figuring out where a deck is on that loop.

I don't distinguish between a deck being "dead" and one being "rotten". I didn't miss your point, you simply assumed that by "dead" I somehow meant banished from the realm of T1 forever.

Instead, I think you missed *my* point. I was suggesting that a deck isn't necessarily going through some sort of a cycle - it could be the case that few people are willing to work on a deck and try to adapt it to the current meta. It's almost as if you're telling the community to give up and just follow what you tell them is good right now. Perhaps it is all a ploy (a successful one at that) to get people to mindlessly follow in your footsteps, to artifically set up this so called "coherent metagame" so that you and your team can take full advantage. I'm not saying that what you're doing is wrong - it is actually very good strategy.

Instead, I'll give you another, more realistic "cycle" - people blow theoretical hot air up our asses telling us that decks like Keeper, Landstill, Parfait, or Dragon are poor choices right now, or that Drains and Workshops don't mix, or that Fish scoops to Oath and Keeper dies to the "prevalent" non-basic hate. They'll do so until someone decides to do a little bit of tweaking, discovers significant improvements to said archetypes, and pilots them to success past what were "known bad match-ups".

[Eastman]

I wanna be an apple! :lol:

[Smmenen]

Sorry, but this notion of labelling archetypes seems a bit silly.

Do players not know how to "adapt"? Do they just snatch a 6 month old decklist off the internet, see that it fails, and label it as "unplayable" or lower tier? Is everyone merely waiting for the big teams to innovate and move the format forward or otherwise dictate what the new "decks to beat" are? Does the T1 world revolve around NE, where if the deck is not played it is not considered good? The way that the mindless drones seemed to have latched on to Meandeck Oath, 5/3, and Titan might actually give the impression that those are the best decks in the format right now (apart from Meandeck Doomsday and Tendrils of course).

For example, I don't think that Fish or Hulk is dead (unless you mindlessly netdeck the dated lists, then sure), Keeper is still very much viable, and Dragon is still strong enough but is barely played. Landstill gets omitted *again* from just about every list of top T1 decks, but then again, if it doesn't appear in NE = it doesn't exist.

It's ironic that you say that I"M being manpulative when you haven't posted your new 4CC deck, your Fish that beats Oath, and Rich has gone 4 months without revealing his U/B Workshop/Drain deck.  I've taken away my secrecy, why don't you take away yours

If you read what I say carefully, you'll notice that I don't actualy tell people to beleive where I beleive each deck is on my cycle, but I'm providing a framework for thinking about decks that I USE.  Why does everything I say have to have an ulterior motive?  I was just trying to share a small glimpse of how I think about t1.

[JuJu]

It's kinda nice how you put Tiers to decks in a different Fashion. Oops. Plan revealed.

Also. Ulterior motives? Meandeck is the leader of team secrecy. What else do we expect? Leaks from TSB?

[rozetta]

Actually, this analysis is worth looking at. If we have a way to place established archetypes on the metagame cycle properly, it will not only more easily identify those which need tweaking, but in what way they need tweaking to be viable again, and if it is possible. It also points to current trends in maindeck and sideboard hate.

We've already clearly identified some trends, which have been discussed at length on these forums. The metagame trends seem to be decided by the amount of certain key cards in use at a given time - Crucible (Bloodmoon, Back to Basics), Trinisphere, Null Rod as examples.

These two rather recent articles actually touch on something important:
http://www.brainburst.com/db/article.asp?id=4656,
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=8405.
If a deck is forced out of viability on account of having enough bad matchups in a given metagame, sometimes, there really isn't a way of making up those matchups without the deck losing it's focus. As explained by example, in the Affinity mirror in standard many people were bringing in so many hate cards during sideboarding that the deck no longer functioned as it should have done and therefore actually started losing, despite the amount of hate it was packing. The engine was, in essence, shut down. Most finely tuned decks do not have a lot of leeway for change, especially in Type 1. Also, tweaking the maindeck to make up those matchups you are worried about losing means that you will likely start losing to different decks that are showing up. This problem is clearly compunded in Type 1 by the fact that there are so many viable archetypes and many people do not neccesarily follow metagame trends (added to the fact that the cardpool hasn't been explored thoroughly enough that we can be sure all viable decks are defined).

Although there may be a way of bringing certain decks back into viability when the metagame is clearly opposing them, that might not be the right choice to make, since you will likely be fighting an uphill battle during the tournament. However, predicting an opening in the metagame for a forgotten deck and gaining the upper hand due to surprise is a much more likely approach to bring a "rotten" deck back into "ripe" status. Remember, it's a cycle, not a curve.

As an aside, my previous list was not exhaustive. I just mentioned decks off the top of my head and I definitely missed several recently-played archetypes.

[Vegeta2711]

As an aside, why should the Canucks post anything? In the past all it seems to of done is just create massive amounts of stupid questions they should've already known the anwsers too and pointless 'this deck sucks' crap. Besides most of the people that care already know what the majority of those decks look like.

Actually, this analysis is worth looking at. If we have a way to place established archetypes on the metagame cycle properly, it will not only more easily identify those which need tweaking, but in what way they need tweaking to be viable again, and if it is possible.

Wouldn't this just be called paying attention? I really don't think you need a system to tell you this, just remembering what was big 3 months ago is basically  all you need.

[dicemanx]

It's ironic that you say that I"M being manpulative when you haven't posted your new 4CC deck, your Fish that beats Oath, and Rich has gone 4 months without revealing his U/B Workshop/Drain deck. I've taken away my secrecy, why don't you take away yours

I fail to see how this is ironic. My point was that people should give a little bit of thought and effort rather than just blindly accepting what decks are deemed to be bad or good at the moment. I'm certainly not going to do the work for everyone else by posting our lists, especially since we are still actively using our decks to win tournaments. We don't ask you to reveal your latest tech that you plan on using to win the events that you play in.

Proposing tier structures for decks simply doesn't work. Not because it is some supposed invitation for flames, but because many archetypes in T1 are very flexible and can be readily adapted/tweaked to thrive in various environments.

f you read what I say carefully, you'll notice that I don't actualy tell people to beleive where I beleive each deck is on my cycle, but I'm providing a framework for thinking about decks that I USE.

Not in this thread perhaps.

Why does everything I say have to have an ulterior motive? I was just trying to share a small glimpse of how I think about t1.

Simply because everything you say *has* an ulterior motive . You have a particular vision of T1, and you are steering the people that are willing (or perhaps lazy enough) to follow along a particular path. Like I said though, there is nothing wrong with that, and I'm certainly not criticizing it in the least.

[Smmenen]

I detest you when you say that.  Yes I have a vision of type one.  The fact of hte matter is that I have played in almost all of the major amercan tournaments this year with the exception of the most recent Waterbury and TMDopen.  

My view of type one as presented in this thread may not be correct, but it certainly has made me top 8 at CCC, Gencon, SCG II and SCG III.  If that isn't evidence enough, then I don't know what is.  Frankly, I can see how you can disagree as you a) have only played in one of those tournaments and b) play in a rather "old school" metagame - i.e. non PTQ Type One environment.  

That's why I'm starting to ignore non-american tournaments for my tournament preparation.

Rich Mattuzzio had his decklist withheld from a Gencon top 8 on Friday.  Don't you think its time you shared your decklists?  I never withheld a decklist that long.

[rozetta]

Wouldn't this just be called paying attention? I really don't think you need a system to tell you this, just remembering what was big 3 months ago is basically  all you need.

Ah, I just think it's good to discuss things to see if peoples' ideas fall in line, and if not, why not. Its always interesting to hash out the reasons as to where deck A's weaknesses lie, especially when people don't have time to playtest every deck out there. It might give valuable information to deck builders, too. And this is why we have a discussion forum - relaying information and ideas is a good thing.

[dicemanx]

I detest you when you say that. Yes I have a vision of type one. The fact of hte matter is that I have played in almost all of the major amercan tournaments this year with the exception of the most recent Waterbury and TMDopen.

My view of type one as presented in this thread may not be correct, but it certainly has made me top 8 at CCC, Gencon, SCG II and SCG III. If that isn't evidence enough, then I don't know what is. Frankly, I can see how you can disagree as you a) have only played in one of those tournaments and b) play in a rather "old school" metagame - i.e. non PTQ Type One environment.

What do you "detest" Steve? That I have a different vision of T1? That I disagree with you? That you are somehow right and get to dictate the fate of the format because you have been successful in tournaments that have a specific metagame? Part of your success comes from the fact that you lead and others follow - you are at the forefront of the meta and you manage to shape the meta behind you. It is considerably more difficult to succeed in a more unpredictable, chaotic environment than in one where every mindless drone will show up with one of two decks. Perhaps then, on a relative scale, my successes actually eclipse your own?

Don't answer that last one - I'm just teasing you. I'd like to know what the point of that outburst was though.

[jpmeyer]

I think the big problem here is that there are two different environments being looked at here, but only one of them is understood by both sides (the East Coast "T1 PTQ circuit.")  It then becomes extremely difficult to know how to respond to posts from the Canadian players when 1) nobody knows what decks are being played up there and 2) nobody knows what these (from the sound of them anyway) very nonstandard decks/builds look like.  I know that personally, from looking at the PTQ circuit T1 decks for instance (I'm looking here at like Waterbury, SCG, Endicott, etc.) in the last few tournies Crucible was averaging around 7-8 copies per T8, with a lot of variance (some tournies had only 1 Crucible in the T8, some had a few decks packing 4, some had a lot of decks packing a couple).

This doesn't look like "everywhere" to me, but like I said, I have no idea what these decks are that you guys are all playing that are packing tons of Crucibles because nothing gets posted here.  I can give you the benefit of the doubt that these Crucible decks are amazing and whatnot, but we can't figure out the important why without actually seeing the relevent info.

[Shock Wave]

Rich Mattuzzio had his decklist withheld from a Gencon top 8 on Friday. Don't you think its time you shared your decklists? I never withheld a decklist that long.

Riiiight. Maybe then everybody will play that decklist, and I'll show up with the anti-deck for that decklist, and I'll T8, and then write some articles about the "evolution" of T1. Good call.

The whole point of withholding the decklist is to challenge people to devise their own strategy for winning, which essentially creates the most diverse environment possible. That's what T1 is all about: an extremely large card pool filled with hundreds of broken card combinations. That is what makes it fun. What makes it God-awful is going to an event only to find that half the field is playing deck X.

"Pre-Internet-T1" is when this format existed in its purest, most enjoyable sense. Now we have the drones that are turning it into T2. *yawn*

[jpmeyer]

Rich Mattuzzio had his decklist withheld from a Gencon top 8 on Friday. Don't you think its time you shared your decklists? I never withheld a decklist that long.

Riiiight. Maybe then everybody will play that decklist, and I'll show up with the anti-deck for that decklist, and I'll T8, and then write some articles about the "evolution" of T1. Good call.

The whole point of withholding the decklist is to challenge people to devise their own strategy for winning, which essentially creates the most diverse environment possible. That's what T1 is all about: an extremely large card pool filled with hundreds of broken card combinations. That is what makes it fun. What makes it God-awful is going to an event only to find that half the field is playing deck X.

"Pre-Internet-T1" is when this format existed in its purest, most enjoyable sense. Now we have the drones that are turning it into T2. *yawn*

It seems ironic to me that withholding decklists would create a more diverse format, since it gives an excuse to play the same deck over and over again.

[Shock Wave]

Rich Mattuzzio had his decklist withheld from a Gencon top 8 on Friday. Don't you think its time you shared your decklists? I never withheld a decklist that long.

Riiiight. Maybe then everybody will play that decklist, and I'll show up with the anti-deck for that decklist, and I'll T8, and then write some articles about the "evolution" of T1. Good call.

The whole point of withholding the decklist is to challenge people to devise their own strategy for winning, which essentially creates the most diverse environment possible. That's what T1 is all about: an extremely large card pool filled with hundreds of broken card combinations. That is what makes it fun. What makes it God-awful is going to an event only to find that half the field is playing deck X.

"Pre-Internet-T1" is when this format existed in its purest, most enjoyable sense. Now we have the drones that are turning it into T2. *yawn*

It seems ironic to me that withholding decklists would create a more diverse format, since it gives an excuse to play the same deck over and over again.

... yet it does, because I am the only one playing it.

[Smmenen]

Rich Mattuzzio had his decklist withheld from a Gencon top 8 on Friday. Don't you think its time you shared your decklists? I never withheld a decklist that long.

Riiiight. Maybe then everybody will play that decklist, and I'll show up with the anti-deck for that decklist, and I'll T8, and then write some articles about the "evolution" of T1. Good call.

The whole point of withholding the decklist is to challenge people to devise their own strategy for winning, which essentially creates the most diverse environment possible. That's what T1 is all about: an extremely large card pool filled with hundreds of broken card combinations. That is what makes it fun. What makes it God-awful is going to an event only to find that half the field is playing deck X.

"Pre-Internet-T1" is when this format existed in its purest, most enjoyable sense. Now we have the drones that are turning it into T2. *yawn*

Drop the attitude.  I don't act like that to you, at least give me the same respect.

The whole point of withholding a decklist is so that you can reap more prizes from your deck design.  

You are suggesting that T1 was better when there was a much less defined metagame .  You are suggesting that a random, wild and crazy metagame is more fun.  

The irony is actually that a well defined metagame is the best incentive for design innovation.  My team has played 5-7 different decklists in as many tournaments, which is in part because of the predictable metagame.  Oath only made sense becuase we could fairly accurately predict what people would be playing.  The predictable metagames leads to rapid metagame shifts, which makes it more diverse over the long term, not less.

It is true that there might be a far greater concentration of a single deck at any given tournament, but in your ideal world, there is almost zero incentive to innovate or prepare for "the metagame" becuase there is none, so to speak.  

If we followed your ideal of T1, we'd be playing 2001 T1 magic.  Metagame coherence provides a stronger and better incentive to change decks from tournament to tournament than a lack of coherence would.  

What keeps T1 from becoming t2 is the fact that you have such a large card pool that people *can* change decks from tournament to tournament.  

By withholding your decklist, you make it harder on others to metagame and continue to make it easier to win for yourself.  It's actually much harder to play a different decklist every tournament than play the same one repeatedly, as you do.

[Smmenen]

I detest you when you say that. Yes I have a vision of type one. The fact of hte matter is that I have played in almost all of the major amercan tournaments this year with the exception of the most recent Waterbury and TMDopen.

My view of type one as presented in this thread may not be correct, but it certainly has made me top 8 at CCC, Gencon, SCG II and SCG III. If that isn't evidence enough, then I don't know what is. Frankly, I can see how you can disagree as you a) have only played in one of those tournaments and b) play in a rather "old school" metagame - i.e. non PTQ Type One environment.

What do you "detest" Steve? That I have a different vision of T1? That I disagree with you? That you are somehow right and get to dictate the fate of the format because you have been successful in tournaments that have a specific metagame? Part of your success comes from the fact that you lead and others follow - you are at the forefront of the meta and you manage to shape the meta behind you. It is considerably more difficult to succeed in a more unpredictable, chaotic environment than in one where every mindless drone will show up with one of two decks. Perhaps then, on a relative scale, my successes actually eclipse your own?

Don't answer that last one - I'm just teasing you. I'd like to know what the point of that outburst was though.

I don't like how you say that people who might listen to what I have to say are "mindless drones" rather than rationale individuals who happened to agree with what I might have to say in any given circumstances.  It implies that my statements are wrong.  Therefore, you are criticizing my views without actually coming out and doing so.  

Why you do this I can't be sure.  Either you think I'm lying (which is absurd) or you think I'm wrong.  If I'm wrong, fine, but at least I'd think the preponderance of the evidence suggests that I'm not.

[freakish777]

Personally, I think the topic is quite interesting, and worth pursuing.

In a coherent closed (I'll discuss what I mean by closed in a bit) metagame, it should at some point (after enough information is collected) be able to make an accurate model of the cycles of the metagame to see which decks are in season so to speak, and which decks are out of season (or rotten).

As such, it would then be simple to show up to the next tournament sporting the right deck for the right metagame.

By closed, I mean an environment in which no new decks ever made an appearence (this would only ever happen under some very far-fetched pre-conditions happened, one of which being there was never a new card introduced into the format).

However, I still think its possible to (with enough information) create a model that would more or less (to some degree of accuracy, as opposed to the closed envirnment where close to 100% accuracy could be achieved) display the seasons of the metagame and predict the number of deck-A that will show up at some tournament based on where we are in the cycle, percentage of people that play rotten/immature/ripe/over-ripe decks, numbers of players playing that deck when it was last in season, number of new decks in the format since that deck was last in season, expectency for how long the deck will be in season, etc.

As an interesting side effect, you might have "inside" information on the price of individual cards (being able to predict the demand for the cards).

Unfortunately, I think such a model would entail having someone with a lot of time on their hands and a heavy background in math, as every deck can be seen as a different variable with values that change over time (and maybe location?) corresponding to the number of people playing that deck.
Additionally, graphically displaying such a model may prove difficult as well, as finding patterns is usually something people do visually.

[Shock Wave]

You are suggesting that T1 was better when there was a much less defined metagame . You are suggesting that a random, wild and crazy metagame is more fun.

That's exactly what I am suggesting.

The irony is actually that a well defined metagame is the best incentive for design innovation.

That's your opinion. I disagree. There's a flip-side to the evidence you've suggested.

My team has played 5-7 different decklists in as many tournaments, which is in part because of the predictable metagame. Oath only made sense becuase we could fairly accurately predict what people would be playing. The predictable metagames leads to rapid metagame shifts, which makes it more diverse over the long term, not less.

If the metagame is predictable, how can it possibly be diverse? Just because you've designed the "anti-deck" for the metagame, that in no way implies diversity. It is more accurate to say that *your team* plays a broader range of decks to combat against a metagame which is NOT diverse.

It is true that there might be a far greater concentration of a single deck at any given tournament, but in your ideal world, there is almost zero incentive to innovate or prepare for "the metagame" becuase there is none, so to speak.

There is no incentive to innovate in a random metagame? There's just as many innovators here in Canada as there are on your team. A lot of decks have origins in Canada, although many of them are discredited and half unheard of. Dragon, Landstill, Oshawa Stompy, Parfait are only 4 of the inventions with Canadian origins. These decks were created irrespective of the metagame, not because it was predictable. Of course, our decks are weak because our metagame is "underdeveloped". I believe Ray made T8 in the Friday event at Gencon with Cherry Parfait. If Vegas had odds on that, they would've been 1,000,000:1 . That's an example of the respect our innovators are given.

If we followed your ideal of T1, we'd be playing 2001 T1 magic. Metagame coherence provides a stronger and better incentive to change decks from tournament to tournament than a lack of coherence would.

Yes, yes we would!!! Do you know how to bring those days back!? If so, can you tell me, please?! I promise I won't act on any of the advice you give me.  :lol:

What keeps T1 from becoming t2 is the fact that you have such a large card pool that people *can* change decks from tournament to tournament.

Actually, T1's recent, striking similiarity to T2 is directly attributed to the "drone process".

1. Steve T8s tourney A with said deck.
2. Steve writes article on said deck.
3. The drones attend event B with said deck.
4. The drones + the original architects comprise something in the realm of 40% of the metagame.

How fun! Onslaught Block, anyone?

In my opinion, the "drone syndrome" is an indication that our innovative instinct has been superceded by our desire to win. We have gold diggers with silver strategies.

By withholding your decklist, you make it harder on others to metagame and continue to make it easier to win for yourself. It's actually much harder to play a different decklist every tournament than play the same one repeatedly, as you do.

How does that make sense? I make it easier for myself to win because I concern myself with building the best deck on my own, which is almost irrespective of the metagame? I could argue that you make it easier for yourself to win by steering people to believe what the best deck is, and then playing the anti-deck for that deck. It is never easy to win, in either case. I'm speaking entirely from an enjoyability perspective here, I'm not talking about winning. Winning is everybody's objective, but that doesn't mean that is entirely why people play this game.

The problem with this format is that it is no longer about fun, which is why I started playing T1. Yeah, Rich isn't having as much fun anymore, who really gives a shit, right? Well, judging by my mail box and the number of people who approach me at events and echo my sentiments, I'm not the only one in this boat.