TheManaDrain.com
September 23, 2020, 06:55:39 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: [Discussion] Metagame Responsibility  (Read 5447 times)
virtual
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 203



View Profile
« on: December 08, 2004, 06:37:06 pm »

Quote
All of the good Psychatog players in Italy have switched to Red instead of Green, because they can use 3-4 Rack and Ruins. This is how you combat Workshop, and this is why those players consistently do well.


  As noted above, in recent Italian tournaments, Stax has been relegated out of the top 8 positions because of a prevelance of Rack and ruins maindecked by tog players.  

  Months ago, dragon was everywhere.  In response, people started playing crypts in their sideboards.  Dragon can play through hate, but when every round of a tournament gives the same massive amount of hate towards a deck, it becomes increasingly difficult for it to play through all of the hate.  

  As a single player in either of these meta-games, depending on your particular situation in the swiss, you can/should still expect to encounter Stax or Dragon decks.  Even playing the particular hate, it comes down to a question of who draws what.  Playing the hate, doesn't guarantee a win against that deck, it just improves your chances.

  Given however, the massive amount of hate against those decks in the aforementioned metagames; when one reaches the top 8, it is reasonable to say that those decks should have been defeated by the rest of the meta-game.  

  Is there an implicit concept of meta-game responsibility, for instance as opposed to the responsibility of the DCI for bannings/restrictions, in order to keep the game balanced.  The DCI should be stepping in, when format distortion is occuring, and when regardless of the hate, a deck is dominant.

Given the lack of restrictions this past December 1st, yet still the current outcry for a restriction of certain cards, it it merely a matter of irresponsible metagames that haven't adopted to the dominant contenders?  No one can be held individually responsible for the actions of a particular meta, so what can be done if a particular metagame is not adopting appropriately.  How can one individual react to an irresponsible metagame.

As I see it one has the following options:  
#1.  Play the deck that the meta-game isn't responding to.  
  I don't particularly like this solution, as it seems like it pigeon-holes one's options for viable decks.  This seems like the "best option."  Furthermore, it does not make the meta-game any more responsible.  It only makes it more degenerate.
#2.  Play a deck with a decent sideboard against that matchup, hope that fate treats you well.
  If you face round after round of the particular matchup, then this still isn't a great solution.  You are however helping as part of the anti-deck movement in the metagame, and acting in the interest of a responsible meta-game.

If this situation arises, and maintains itself, I could see that people would call for a restriction of the particular cards in question.  However, in reality, because the meta-game could respond appropriately (as purportedly shown by the current italian meta), the cards should not be restricted.   That means that playing in an "irresponsible" meta-game could be particularly degenerate, and could not be influenced by one's individual decision.  What if there is no one deck that has a >50% chance against the particular offender, and the only "good" response besides restriction, is if a majority of the meta-game players play a the deck with the 49% chance, and only because of the maindecked metagame hate...

I bring this up as a general, theoretical topic for discussion.  
Does any of this hold true, Or is this whole idea just essoteric and inconsequential.
Logged

Team White Lotus:  Out Producing U since 1995.

Anyone near LA who wants to play, TWL tests about once a week, send me a PM.
Methuselahn
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1051


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2004, 07:55:09 pm »

I don't get it.

At the very least, 'irresponsible' isn't optimal word choice here.  There is no responsible and irresponsible, there is just decks competing against each other.

Quote
#1. Play the deck that the meta-game isn't responding to.
I don't particularly like this solution, as it seems like it pigeon-holes one's options for viable decks. This seems like the "best option." Furthermore, it does not make the meta-game any more responsible. It only makes it more degenerate.


This actually seems like the natural and best solution if your goal is to win and not 'fix' the metagame (or whatever.)

I think the other facet is that the metagame is already 'responsible' and that decks in general that are at the top actually are degenerate.
Logged
JACO
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1215


Don't be a meatball.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2004, 01:19:16 pm »

I believe that is is the players' responsibility to metagame, and not rely on the DCI to keep the format 'balanced.'

Most of these players' idea of what is 'balanced' is a format where they can keep playing the same deck with little modification. If you really want Type 1 to truly be a PTQ and Grand Prix style format, then you have to give people time to develop solutions to decks that are problematic for you if you're not going to develop solutions yourself. Type 1 is the format where you can play with all of your cards, and because of this, there are always the best solutions available to any given problem, because the entire card pool is available. As people see results of tournaments reported every weekend, the ebb and flow of the metagame naturally changes.

Part of playing the 'best deck' in a given tournament is accurately predicting deck trends. By this I mean predicting what will show up in large numbers, what hate will be present in large numbers, etc. It is only after you have accurately examined this that you can properly choose a 'best deck' for a given field. In a field full of Stax decks that completely hate out Oath (Smokestack, SB Spawning Pit) and Combo variants (Trinisphere, SB Chalice), a deck like TnT or a 7/10 variation probably becomes the 'best deck' in that field.

Choosing a deck that the field is unprepared for isn't 'degenerate' at all, but is the wisest choice for those who understand the metagame. If you truly want to be competitive and win a tournament, it is your responsibility to play the best deck you can. To do otherwise would be foolish, as you are making the other good players do less and less work, and providing them with an easier path to victory.
Logged

Want to write about Vintage, Legacy, Modern, Type 4, or Commander/EDH? Eternal Central is looking for writers! Contact me. Follow me on Twitter @JMJACO. Follow Eternal Central on Twitter @EternalCentral.
Milton
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 139


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2004, 01:34:06 pm »

Clearly, though, there is a desired power level that the DCI is willing to accept.  Otherwise, nothing would be restricted ever.  "Damn.  I lost again.  He had three Black Lotuses in his opening draw.  I guess I didn't metagame properly".

Proper metagaming and adjusting to your environment is a fair argument, but it is an argument that could be used to oppose any restriction, no matter how necessary or warranted.

In fact, we have even recently seen cards restricted BEFORE they have even become tournament legal, which makes some of your argument less valid.  They haven't had a chance to distort the metagame, yet they are still restricted.

The real question is what is the acceptable level of brokenness in Type I?  What is the acceptable power level in the format?  Have we crossed that line with our current meta?  If we have, should there be restrictions, or will the market of ideas that is Type I fix the problem?

With the wide array of card choices and card interaction in Type I you could endlessly claim that people "simply need to adjust".  In fact, in Type I there is almost always a solution.  But, to make that claim in the face of a degenerate metagame only harms the game.  (I'm not saying that our meta is currently degenerate at all, just making the point).
Logged

I still have to poop.
Vegeta2711
Bouken Desho Desho?
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1734


Nyah!

Silky172
View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2004, 02:27:52 pm »

1. The wording of this is poor at best, there is no 'responsibility'.

2. In a real PTQ/GP like 70% of people play the best deck or deck that is best suited to beat the best deck. The other 30% in inconsquential unless it's something new that falls under catergory 1 or 2.

Guess what you should be most of the time? One of the guys in that 70%.
Logged

Team Reflection

www.vegeta2711.deviantart.com - My art stuff!
Grand Inquisitor
Always the play, never the thing
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 1476


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2004, 01:50:56 pm »

Quote
In a real PTQ/GP like 70% of people play the best deck or deck that is best suited to beat the best deck


I'm not sure if you meant this as a corollary for how to metagame in T1, and maybe I'm being naive either about the diversity of T1, or the lack thereof in PTQ/GP formats, however, isn't our system of 'what strategies beat what other strategies' a little more complex than this?  In other words, lets assume pre-restriction long was the absolute brokeness that everyone said.  It's obviously easy to come up with 60+15 cards that would take 51+% against it.  However, this 'anti-deck' would most likely get murdered by the rest of the field.  More than this, the incentive to play the 'anti-deck' isn't great enough because either 1) the dominant deck doesn't beat the rest of the field by a wide enough margin, or b) the dominant deck doesn't show up in great enough numbers for whatever reason.

If the metagame strategy you suppose is so widely accepted in PTQ/GP formats, than why haven't we seem more homogenation in T1?  Is it because we're bad, or <insert social/psychological criticism of T1 players>, or is it because the analogy simply isn't apt, because we have a more complex format?

We can always bring in arguments about power level, fundamental turns, and critical mass (please don't), but how much of this characteristic of our format exists, simply because we really do have a lot of tools at our disposal, and, if we want to be competitive, we have to prepare for all those tools?
Logged

There is not a single argument in your post. Just statements that have no meaning. - Guli

It's pretty awesome that I did that - Smmenen
virtual
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 203



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2004, 02:42:42 pm »

I personally try to play the deck that beats what I see as the top-2 most likely decks.  Then I rely on play skill to beat anything else or anything rogue that I encounter.  

This thread originates because I took TPS to a tournament a few months ago, expecting a lot of control slaver, and some fish.  I made it to the Top-8, and top 4 I played against Dragon.  Even though I played 4x force, sided in 4x crypts, and 4x hydroblasts, game 1 he won turn 1, game 3 he won turn 2.  (Orim's chanting me an my turn, and I had a crypt in my opening hand, get none of my other hate (4x force, 4x pyro, 1x chain of vapor))

In trying to blame this loss on something else, I started thinking that some of it was due to the fact that I think I was the only person there who had a decent/good board versus dragon.  Everyone else was totally unprepared, and got slaughtered by it.  Even though I was prepared, the cards didn't work themselves out for me to win.  Had the whole day been full of 4x crypts in the SB, I don't think dragon would have gotten there.  

This got me thinking, and I was trying to articulate my feeling that, in a way, everyone else's unpreparedness made my deck choice more vulnerable.  

I was trying to convey this idea in my dissertation, but I guess that I wasn't very clear.  I hope this helps give a bit of context.  

This idea struck me as at the very least, interesting, so I wanted to bring it up, just for some discussion.  I'm not sure exactly what if anything will come out of it.  Trying to determine *how* to metagame properly is something that is rarely discussed, and I thought that this might bring that topic up.
Logged

Team White Lotus:  Out Producing U since 1995.

Anyone near LA who wants to play, TWL tests about once a week, send me a PM.
Elric
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 213



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2004, 03:04:16 pm »

I want to point out that in a hypothetical rock-paper-scissors metagame, if rock beats scissors very badly, scissors beats paper medium, and paper beats rock medium, the most played deck should be paper.  That is, the most played deck should be the deck such that its bad matchup gets crushed by (that deck’s bad matchup, or the most played deck’s good matchup).  

So if rock-scissors is the most lopsided matchup, then paper should be the most played deck.  In the case when only a narrow deck can beat rock—“the best deck”, then scissors>paper should be the most lopsided matchup, and rock will be the most played deck.  What’s the definition of best deck, though?  In this case, scissors would have the highest win percentage if all 3 decks were played equally—does that make it the best deck?  Or is it rock, the deck you see most played in real life?

You can see how this theory runs into problems when trying to describe magic tournaments.  There is an essential amount of “stickiness” in deck choices, either by people being better with their current decks (and not trying to get good at other decks, or not having enough incentives to justify getting good with those decks), people only having the cards for their current decks, people liking their current decks more or some other factor entirely.
Logged
Azhrei
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 289



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2004, 04:56:39 pm »

The purpose of tournaments is competition. The purpose of competition is to work to achieve victory.

Always bring what you can win with, or stay home. If there's an SCG tournament with $1000 in prizes for first, anyone who doesn't head for degeneracy is a fool.

If it's some small thing with a $2 entry fee, less so.
Logged

"Firm footwork is the fount from which springs all offense and defense." -- Giacomo diGrassi, 1570

Paragons of Vintage: If you have seen farther it is because you stand on the shoulders of giants.
Smmenen
Guest
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2004, 06:05:35 pm »

This is an interesting thread adn while I have thoughts on these matters - the thoughts I have are disjointed.

The first thing I think we need to recognize is that you opening post states that there are "dominant" decks.  The data does not bear this out.  There are clearly heavily prevalent cards: Workshop, Mana Drain, Welder - but these cards don't "dominate."  Dominate means that one is performing very well to the exclusion of all others.

I also think T1 has serious innovation problems.  People aren't coming up with enough new decks, and they also have a serious problem understanding when a new deck is bad and when a new deck is good.  The "herpes" deck is a great example.  It may have some potent combos, but the inclusion of Boneshredder is laughable.  People don't seem to be able to distinguish between the good and the bad cards.

Also, not enough people are trying to "break" the format.  People try to come up with cool new aggro or aggro control or even control decks, but not enough people are actively trying to pursue decks which just dominate the format.  I'm saddened very time I see a new "GAT" list posted on these forums.  The format has so much potential that remains untapped.

T1 players gravitate toward decks that are easy to play and this creates a chasm between what "is" and what "should be."  I think there should be alot more Dday decks given the fact that it is 5 proxy.  As of yet, they haven't shown up.  

There are also all kind of biases and prejudices at work which operate beneath the surface.  This things create a knot that is difficult to untangle.  

I used to beleive in such a thing as "the best deck."  I no longer do.  When things are fluid in this format, I think it is very difficult for a best deck to emerge and consistently perform.  I'm not sure whether this problem has gone away becuase of restrictions, innovation, or whether it was just my perception that there was this problem at all.
Logged
Vegeta2711
Bouken Desho Desho?
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1734


Nyah!

Silky172
View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2004, 07:39:12 pm »

Quote
I'm not sure if you meant this as a corollary for how to metagame in T1, and maybe I'm being naive either about the diversity of T1, or the lack thereof in PTQ/GP formats, however, isn't our system of 'what strategies beat what other strategies' a little more complex than this?


How would it be more complex?

Look my example was only if there IS a #1 best deck that is undisputed and nothing comes close to matching it's testing record/results (Yes results). I'll now explain what happens if there's arguably other ones for the crown, taking the recent and upcoming 1.x season as an example.

The top deck is pretty much Rav. Affinity, it has the best match-up's in general and has shown to be quite resilant against hate. Now RDW would probably be second on the list results-wise and has the bonus of automatically dodging the hate aimed at Rav. Finally a vocal minority still believes Reanimator is the best deck and is probably the 3rd best around. Now it's an argueable case to reasonably play any of these three decks because Rav isn't far and away the best deck, it's only slightly better and one could say this is offset by dodging hate.

So now we have a situation where there are essentially three 'best decks'. Does the 70-30 still apply? Yes it does, it simply breaks down a bit more, because now the 'best deck' is divisable by 3. Here's some guesstimated stats.

Rav: 22%
RDW: 25%
Reanimator: 13%

'Counter decks': 10%

Now one might ask, how do you possibly counter 3 different decks? You need go no further than the U/W Scepter deck that rolled into 3/4th. Look what the top 3 decks basically consist of. Creatures, burn (Disciple, Shrap. Blast and normal burn) and the occasional disruption effect. (Seal, Mage and Duress. Not overly heavy amounts though)

Now the U/W Scepter deck is all cheap counters, removal and a lock made specfically to stop creature based offenses. It basically meta'd against the first two decks and just pigeon-holed the thrid one with the generality of counters. UG Madness w/ MD artifact removal would be a similar type of call for that sort of metagame. The other 30% would be bad decks, rogue decks and badly metagamed decks.

So you see, in that situation (One more similar to T1's set-up) it's reasonable for there to be multiple 'best decks' and a few counters to them. Essentially this would give you a meta of 5 or 6 (Hell let's assume there's another reasonable counter deck choice if you want, like Goblins of something) decks that would consist of a reasonable field.

It would then be safe to conclude, barring a new deck being created, that the T8 results over time would mostly be the top 3 'best decks' with the counter decks equaling or being just under the results of Reanimtor on that scale. And then yes, if you counted all T8's, you'd have other decks than those 6 make splashes, but most of them would be tiny by comparision to other ones.

So over say a week of PTQ's in the U.S., which would be equal to about a month or two of large T1 tourneys. Under most circumstances you'd come up with something like this.

.......T8's.... Wins
Rav: 11                                2
RDW: 15                              2
Reanimator: 7                      0                      
U/W Scepter   5                    1
U/G Madness: 3                    1

And then there's random other stuff which is usually unoptimal or unsuited for the meta, but piloted well or got lucky.

Goblins: 4                           0
Desire: 2                             1
Rock: 1                               0
etc.

You get the idea. The best decks will do the best overall, but as long as little less powerful bad decks sneak in, it gives the other players reasoning that they'll be the lucky one to do it with their own deck. If you look at the last article by Pip, it shows 10 (11 if you count Belcher) in that same timeframe showing up. It's also a weird trend that the number of decks showing up over time continues to grow.

Quote
In other words, lets assume pre-restriction long was the absolute brokeness that everyone said. It's obviously easy to come up with 60+15 cards that would take 51+% against it. However, this 'anti-deck' would most likely get murdered by the rest of the field. More than this, the incentive to play the 'anti-deck' isn't great enough because either 1) the dominant deck doesn't beat the rest of the field by a wide enough margin, or b) the dominant deck doesn't show up in great enough numbers for whatever reason.


...

If the deck wasn't beating the rest of the field by a wide enough margain, you'd have a situation like I mentioned above. One issue is it's very difficult to find a 'best' deck by traditional means, because people are so  random in what they play. The best deck trend CAN be seen however in the Swede meta, with Stax as the 'best deck' and everyone not playing Stax, playing anti-decks. It is intresting to see that the different type of meta they have there.

The only reason for the second reason is lack of cards or just plain stubbornness/stupidity.

The reason people haven't seen such a difference, is results don't really help in determing squat anymore. What does it tell you when 2.6 billion different archtypes come up? Esp. with such vastly diff meta's? Not much. Also many decks are simliar in power, but even when people find one kind of a deck is better than another. They write the difference off as 'slight' and continue playing whatever it is.

I'm also not supposing squat, back when people actually bothered doing PTQ breakdowns, that's how it pretty much always came out. It's intresting how you automatically assume somehow T1 is somehow 'more complex' than other formats, why? Because you get to play with Yawg's Will? Formats will always naturally gravitate towards the best decks, that's just how it is. Any difference from this comes from outside influence, as Azheri says, just play the most powerful deck possible. 20 decks can't be the most powerful, neither can really anything over 2-3 decks have match-up results that close togheter unless they all share the same base.

You are right on one point, T1 tourneys are so random, picking a 'counter' deck is amazingly difficult unless fun stuff like GAT is so obviously good a lot of people suck it up and play the deck.
Logged

Team Reflection

www.vegeta2711.deviantart.com - My art stuff!
TheWhiteDragon
Basic User
**
Posts: 1644


ericdm69@hotmail.com MrMiller2033 ericdm696969
View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2004, 11:44:29 pm »

I have to agree with Smmenen on a few points, but disagree on others.

To say that there is a dominant deck is just silly.  The data totally doesn't hold that statement.  Now if you are going to say that there are a particular 4 or 5 decks that take 75% of the T8 EVERY tournament, that's more believable.

On the note of innovation, I completely disagree - and Steve, I'm shocked you of all people would claim this.  There have been new decks taking T8 slots in recent tournaments.  Doomsday with beacon was new when DDay became unrestricted...the monoblue oath was an innovation...there are many new decks coming all the time.  The reason that these are not noticed so much is because new decks are often unproven decks, and when people try a new deck in a tourney, they dodge some hate and get wins on suprise factor, but sometimes just roll to the field at large.  If someone makes a really cool deck, but has a bad day and comes in 16th, his list will never be posted, probably tossed aside, and it will appear as if only the proven, standard builds are present.  Most people that want to win a lotus aren't going to spend $30 to test their darksteel reactor deck, no matter how good they think it is.  Most people that innovate scrub out, but I will not believe that innovation is not present.

On a similar note...people are trying to break the format...but it's not easy.  I sit at apprentice like an hour a day on average (probably more like 4) and try to make the new T1 pwning deck that will just win everytime no matter what deck my opponent plays.  But, that deck doesn't exist due to coin flips, and also luck.  You can make optimized, degenerately broken decks, but you can't make THE deck...it will never exist.

On the whole - responding in general - I still contend that the best plan is not to hate out a deck or pick something that will just hose a certain archetype, it is to build a good deck on its own merit that has secondary plans or MD answers to popular decks that are generically good and a board that is good against the entire field.  Play a good deck that will win vs. a generic field, and you can adapt it to a metagame, but picking a purely metagame hate deck is risky and foolish.
Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath
Smmenen
Guest
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2004, 11:48:52 pm »

Quote from: TheWhiteDragon


On the note of innovation, I completely disagree - and Steve, I'm shocked you of all people would claim this.  There have been new decks taking T8 slots in recent tournaments.  Doomsday with beacon was new when DDay became unrestricted...the monoblue oath was an innovation...there are many new decks coming all the time.  


But all those decks are meandeck decks.   Doomsday was legal for over a month and a half and yet when mentioned people joked that it was horrible.  My team has managed to come up with new decks all the time and we are just a dozen people yet our decks constitute about half of hte new good decks in 2004.  The others being Belcher, FCG, 5/3, 7/10 (which is half ours since it was based on our workshop slavery), etc etc etc.

The point is that there is SOOO much that can be done.  And I know this because I'm on the cutting edge.  That's how I can claim that.  this format is drastically underdeveloped.
Logged
TheWhiteDragon
Basic User
**
Posts: 1644


ericdm69@hotmail.com MrMiller2033 ericdm696969
View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 12, 2004, 12:23:57 am »

The two i mentioned there were Meandeck decks, yes, but don't fool yourself into thinking that MeanDeckers are the only innovators.  I have a slew of lists that are just waiting for the right field.  Most people won't expose a good deck that's a little green if the meta isn't right for it.  That's just bad playing.  I totally agree that there are SO many new things that can be done, however there are many less new things that will still WIN.  People that want to play their new, fun, deck (unless they can keep it under wraps and test and tweak the bejeezus out of it) should stick to local hobby shops where they have a chance of winning.  Honestly, there are many ways to kill, but the most viable winning strategies are being used and others still are in the shadows.
A lot of people are not deck builders like you and I, but players.  You can't fault Babe Ruth for not inventing the fat barrel bat, but you can give him props for using it better than any other player ever (not to get into a baseball debate).  If you want to see more people playing different, new, things...give them all your decklists and play against them at the next SCG.  Some of us are builders, and we will continue to innovate...some are just players, and they will smash face with the netdecks.
T1 underdeveloped?  Most definitely...but are there strong reasons for this?  Absolutely.  Keeping tech secret until the right meta, not knowing your new deck well enough yet, seeing a hole that allows a preexisting deck to pwn - all factors.
To repeat something I already said and to address your last comment, Steve, while you feel TMD has created >50% of the good decks in T1 in 2004 (which I disagree with), there have been many more innovations than have shown up in the T8 and been deemed "good."  Like I said, an innovation that has a bad day and places 16th will most likely never be noticed or heard from again...but that still counts as innovation in today's environment.
Logged

"I know to whom I owe the most loyalty, and I see him in the mirror every day." - Starke of Rath
Smmenen
Guest
« Reply #14 on: December 12, 2004, 12:34:44 am »

Just to be clear, I didn't say Meandeck are the only innovators.
Logged
virtual
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 203



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2004, 01:47:27 pm »

You say that the format is drastically under-developed, but if you look at recent decks that have come to the forefront, many of them were spawned by new cards being printed.  I wouldn't say that is the rule, but I think that something based around old cards, that is a competative deck is the exception.  

Let's look at a list:

7/10 .... Born from slaver, but take away the big guy, and it's not really anything
Slaver... WS/Drain - this one is a bit obvious
Oath... This was still around, and Orchard is what broke it in half
Doomsday...
Belcher...

Now the exceptions as I see it:
5/3  (And you could put this on Trinisphere)
FCG (Was stolen from extended)

Maybe Mono-U plays different enough?
Transmute.dec

Anyways, if you look at the format, and say "underdeveloped", then new decks should be coming out at least fairly regularly over time, that don't use any new cards, or at Least they aren't based on the new cards... From that top list I think it's fairly obvious that the new sets have given us our new deck/types.  There may be more hiding in those new sets, but most of the "cutting edge" innovation arrives from new sets.  

In my view, there usually is/are a few new decks from each rotation, and then the format spends a while adjusting to whatever the metagame has become, and what has become dominant.  Right now people are adjusting to Trinisphere, while trying to maintain a decent matchup against oath.  Given that people were expecting a Trinisphere restriction, I think the format lagged a bit.  People became lazy.  Why beat Trini when the DCI will beat it for you.  Only now do the lists/threads start emerging about R&R MD, and FCG starts coming back...

Meandeck/other main teams with lots of people are on the cutting edge of deck innovation, but as I said, these decks mostly arrise from being based around new cards, and they mostly arrive at the beginning of the cycle when said set becomes active.  There may be a delay (as from MS -> Titan), but really it comes down to mostly looking at a new set, and trying to see what can be broken in half.  Given Champions of Kamigawa, I think that one of the only remaining cards that can be broken in Type1 from it is Bojisu, however since it COPT, it may not be viable.  I personally don't expect to see many groundbreaking new deck types until BoK.  Some sets are better for Type 1 than others.  Mirrodin block brought a ton of new things into the format, we may still be adjusting, but I think that most of the "brand spankin new" decks have come out.  Maybe SCG will prove me wrong.

-Virtual
Logged

Team White Lotus:  Out Producing U since 1995.

Anyone near LA who wants to play, TWL tests about once a week, send me a PM.
Smmenen
Guest
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2004, 02:27:12 pm »

Let me just say that in no other major tournament format would innovation be as slow as it is in T1.  It's becuase there aren't pro teams trying to break the format.  

If the pros were working on T1, it would be DRASTICALLY different.  It wouldn't even be recognizable.
Logged
The M.E.T.H.O.D
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 474



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2004, 02:47:20 pm »

Steve's right, the majority of us (including myself) work on new decks and ideas, while tweaking old decks, but very few of us actually try to test the limits of the format and break it.
Logged

Team Meandeck: classy old folks that meet up at the VFW on leap year
SliverKing
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 199

SuprJsh
View Profile
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2004, 02:50:40 pm »

I dont think thats a fair comparison.  The sheer numbers involved in other formats is partially responsible for the 'breaking' of those formats.  Sure if there were a type 1 pro tour it would be a radical advance for the format, but not just because 'the pros' are better than we are... but because you'd have a hundreds of full-time players putting weeks/months into the format.  Right now there are maybe a handful of teams that do serious playtesting, and all of them are at best part-time (being students or actual adults with real jobs).  The man-hours involved in truly breaking a format (which would be multiplied by at least 3 over any other format because of the cardpool) is staggering and frankly I'm proud of the innovations the Type 1 community has made over the past 18 months.  All with grossly fewer players and grossly less prize support as incentive.  
Whats more, pro's dont break PTQ style formats.  They get first crack at every format. They get to work in a relative vacuum and tech only needs to work once.  Then the format is set down for an entire year.  Trying to break the format needs for the format to be sitting still. For the style of weekly/monthly tournaments that Type 1 has; adaptation plays a critical role that the professionals never have to deal with.
Of course we can do a lot more to create new decks, discover new synergies and explore our format... we've got every card ever printed to work with.   The question is why?? what is the impetus for spending hours and hours poring over decklists and testing matchups?  For the professionals its THOUSANDS of dollars and invitations into future bigtime events.  For us its mostly pride...   fun...  a card worth a few hundred dollars.
We're responsible for fleshing out our metagame, and for trying to adapt as new cards arise; but lets stay realistic about the pace of change we can expect from a relatively small group who has little financial incentive.
Logged

"SliverKing's liver taps for black mana" -Azhrei
Smmenen
Guest
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2004, 03:41:08 pm »

Quote from: SliverKing
frankly I'm proud of the innovations the Type 1 community has made over the past 18 months.  All with grossly fewer players and grossly less prize support as incentive.  


Well said.  I agree completely, but I just want to us to recognize the fact that it *would* be very different nonetheless.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 21 queries.