[Article] The Anatomy of a Vintage Team

[Zherbus]

Until now, Teams in Vintage have simply just "been". There has been no classification, code of conduct, or any real structure to how a team is formed. Teams tend to sprout up as if nothing went into its formation and rivalries are formed among people who don't even know each other. In this article I plan to help end all that with clarifications of what really matters in the world of teams.

The Article

The discussion where people are jumping all over me for whatever reason.

[Freelancer]

Great article, always nice to know how the inside works in a team with this much success...


As a side not I have no idea why people are dissing you in the other forum...maybe they are just intelectually (w/e) underdevelopted...


Ps. I'm from holland and even I can see that two words are written wrong...sorry for that...

[Toad]

As a side not I have no idea why people are dissing you

Zherbus is a moron

Whatever ... Nice article.

[Gabethebabe]

I can´t help but find this utterly boring matter.

Play in a team, do it alone, keep your decks secret, or dump them immediately on internet, brag about your performance or be modest about it

I couldn´t care less.

Give me a technical article and I read it. Or twice.
Give me this and I don´t reach the end.

Sorry.

[Saucemaster]

I can´t help but find this utterly boring matter.

Play in a team, do it alone, keep your decks secret, or dump them immediately on internet, brag about your performance or be modest about it

I couldn´t care less.

Give me a technical article and I read it. Or twice.
Give me this and I don´t reach the end.

Sorry.

I can't help but find this post utterly useless matter.

Enjoy the article, don't enjoy the article, find it interesting, find it boring.

I couldn't care less.

Give me a post with substance and I read it.  Maybe even twice.
Give me this and I'm sorry I reached the end.

Not really sorry.

As for me, I hope a lot of people take the article to heart.  I think that what Vintage probably needs most right now--more than restrictions, more than new big tournaments (now that SCG is taking care of that nicely)--is a dramatic upswing in the competitiveness of the environment.  I want to see new teams giving TSB and Meandeck a serious run for their money, taking down T8's, and rubbing our face in it.  I want to feel like it's "innovate or die", not "innovate and just win some more power".  I want to have to protect my throat for fear of who's out there, after it.  And I want it all to be fun and respectful.

Great article.

[Covetous]

Not to be an elitist asshole, but why do you care what people say on the SCG forums?  I don't recall ever seeing anything profoundly insightful on those boards--that's the reason that this site exists.  If people get pissed off because it sounded to them like you were saying that people who are not on teams are worthless (not that you said anything even close to that), then they should get back at you by creating a new deck or variant and winning some power or beating you at a tourney with it rather than bitching about it on some internet forum like an ineffective putz.

I will echo what Gabe said--I'm sure that it takes a long time to write a well-thought-out article on any topic, but a lot of people (myself included) would rather hear about a deck or specific issue related to the game or metagame rather than about teams, which you could almost refer to as the meta-metagame.  No offense, but I'd rather hear about something that means something.

[ShadyPhoenix]

Not to be an elitist asshole, but why do you care what people say on the SCG forums?  I don't recall ever seeing anything profoundly insightful on those boards--that's the reason that this site exists.

Did you not read McGyver's posts?

I rather enjoyed the article - but then, I did just help make a team less than a month ago. The subject was very relevant to me, so obviously I liked it.

[Methuselahn]

Why do I get the feeling that people will get upset because they see themselves not fitting into one of those "total-package" teams and they don't like that image.

I can see how falling into one of those other descriptions can make you feel inferior, (maybe because of the wording) but if you do, feel free to call me.  I have cheese to go with that whine.

I think it was a decent article to motivate people.  Surely, this topic is underdiscussed.

Saucy describes the perfect ideal.

[Hi-Val]

At the 1.5 tournaments locally, if I show up, I usually win the whole thing. The competition is trashy and nobody has enough older cards to make good decks. There are two schools of thought that can go here: I can go every week, smash people and watch attendence decline and a gaming store lose revenue, or I can try to bring everyone else up to my level. Steve is, in a similar way, advocating the second option here. People on teams are usually much better than people who are not on teams. Aside from the obvious deck development and testing, there's other things like card sharing and carpooling to events that makes Team players much more competitive in the environment.

A team isn't just a group of friends who come up with a witty moniker. It's a group that tests, plays, develops, and explores the game. Vintage needs more teams. I'm not going to say that TSB and Meandeck are stealing candy from babies here, but that in our successes as teams, we've encountered far less resistance than we should have. There is more room in Vintage than just two superteams. I want to see big stuff in the Midwest.  I want to see people who can trash talk make outrageous claims in good fun about how they're gonna tear house at the next big event. I want to see another team come out with a truly amazing deck and say "Why didn't we think of that first!"

Steve has written about how you go from that group of friends playing once a week at the hobby shop to being a group of people who efficiently devote time and energy to prospering in Vintage.

[Freelancer]

I seriously want to start a good team here in Holland...two problems arise though:
lack off experience on my side (no real experts will join my team blah),      
 lack off power from my side...(can't really play in tourneys competetivly)

If you have any great solutions for these problems message me and I will listen...if it ever get's that far my fiction team will kick meandeck a*se    (in a nice and sensitive way )...Untill than I post decks/ideas and participate in discussion to add as much as I possible can...

Zherbus is a moron

Can't argue with that...

[nataz]

My view on the article:

<3 more Type I on SCG

Vintage needs more teams. I'm not going to say that TSB and Meandeck are stealing candy from babies here, but that in our successes as teams, we've encountered far less resistance than we should have. There is more room in Vintage than just two superteams

meh, I disagree. Vintage dosn't need more teams, it needs more dedicated players. And an increase in truely dedicated players can only come if the prize payout gets better.

p.s.
sweet, I fit into a catagory: GoGo Team (Local) Maine

[rvs]

Even though I don't care much for the topic itself, it was well-written and probably gets the message across. People are definately reading too much between the lines at SCG.com. I don't think there was any way of sending out the same message while avoiding that anyway. Maybe you could've mentioned that you were just talking about the NE, since those are the only teams you mentioned, while there are a few other good teams around the globe.

[Zherbus]

To be fair I did mention B&H: West Coast and Team CAB.

I needed to through ISP in there too.

[BigMac]

As being part of a small but dedicated group of people all i can say is that i went from being an average player here to being one of the top players people want to avoid in a tourny as much as possible. (probably they just wanna kick my hiney hehe)

So all i can say is that the team as a whole with alll peoples strong and weak factors makes people being better players. Talking about it, having fun, thinking about new combos or decks. Basically it comes down to more know more.

I am not saying that more always is better, but with a selective group of dedicated friends you can make a good team and improve your gameplay considerably, let alone the possibilities of sharing cards with eachother.

[LouGodKingofDustBunnys]

Hi-Val’s right, the rest of us should be putting up more of a fight, but hell, it’s not that damn easy. It seems like the most vocal players are already on teams, and I think a lot of the rest of us don’t know what we would need to do to become/form a team.

 Just using myself as an example, I own no power (for now), I have 4 kids, work 70 hour weeks, and I still have time to go through workstation trying to come up with a new idea or 10. I read every article I find on Vintage, read every post in these vintage forums, but for the most part I keep my mouth shut, because I don’t want to be flamed for an unfinished idea, an idea that might be fleshed out into a full competitive deck if I had someone to bounce my ideas off, or even just spending a few hours tweaking someone else’s ideas. The idea of being on a team sound just wonderful.

Therein lies the rub. I’m not vocal enough to really get noticed on the boards, and I don’t have a hell of a lot of time. I met some of the local players in the last Hammer’s comics tourney, but the most professional players that I saw there, I really didn’t leave a good impression on. I mean Jesus, game two of the semis against ELD, I had the game won, but I blew it. I could have sat there and said that the night before I had worked till 5 in the morning, helped my wife and my neighbor’s kid flesh out their decks for a few hours, got an hour of sleep then drove for an hour to Manchester to play in the tourney, but I didn’t. Because when it comes down to it, I just blew it, totally and completely embarrassed myself by not giving ELD better competition. Would this have happened if I was on a team? Maybe, maybe not. But after that performance, I’m not likely to get invited onto a team.

When it comes right down to it, most of us regular people can’t get on a team, because we don’t really seem to have anything to offer to smaller teams, the one’s that could use the numbers, the ideas. Do I think that other teams will rise up and compete with two super teams? Yes, sure why not. However it’s not going to be like the Pro Tour. As far as I can see, there maybe, in the end 3-4 super teams, but that’s going to be it.

[Hi-Val]

meh, I disagree. Vintage dosn't need more teams, it needs more dedicated players. And an increase in truely dedicated players can only come if the prize payout gets better.

I don't know that I agree with your reasoning, but I agree with your result. To me,

More Teams = Better players (increase in playskill, better decks, etc.)

To you,

Better prizes = Better players

I disagree with that. In your postulation, the newbies and bad players are still present, they just get muscled out by more pros coming into our format. People who put time into developing decks don't do it because they can win X dollars, they do it because they can win. If that wasn't the case, I assert that most of the good players would have jumped ship for T2 a long time ago. In my example of teams creating better players, you reform the bad players into good ones, increasing the general skill level of Vintage. In numbers terms, we get this:

My way: 100 bad players, 10 form a team and become good. The ratio of bad:good is now 10:90

Yours: 100 bad players, 10 outsiders join to win prizes. The ratio is now 10:100.

10:90 > 10:100

If I misinterpreted your argument, please correct me. I think that teams are critical to the improvement of skills and the next step from being a good/decent player to becoming a great one. If you disagree with this, let me know. An argument on prizes drawing more people in is interesting and I'd like to see you defend it more, even if I disagree with it.

[nataz]

My way: 100 bad players, 10 form a team and become good. The ratio of bad:good is now 10:90

Yours: 100 bad players, 10 outsiders join to win prizes. The ratio is now 10:100.

10:90 > 10:100

ahh, but see, there is the disconnect. In my model, the better players come from within the Vintage Player set.

I would argue that there are lots of people right now who play vintage that would be much better players, if the time investment was worth it to them.

Number of people who are content putting in the time for just the win < number of people who would be willing to put in the time for a significantly larger prize pool.

But that second group still plays vintage, they just never really rise to the top.

More later, Lab now
bye

[Covetous]

If the increase in prize payouts attracts more pro/semi-pro players, the result could be either good or bad:

Good could result if these players decide to innovate, create new decks, invent new tech, etc.  The premise here is that good players make good decks, and experienced players from other formats might be able to bring new ideas to our format.  This would lead to metagame evolution.

Bad could result if these people simply start to win because a great player running a decent deck will win tourneys (think Nassif & EBA).  This might lead to more people playing the "best" decks and no additional people inventing "better" decks.  One aspect of the whole PTQ format idea comes into play here, but potentially in a negative way.  People might try to hone existing decks to win tourneys rather than to try to invent new decks to win tourneys.

Teams are good insofar as they bring a bunch of capable like-minded people together for a common purpose.  Teams can be bad insofar as people keep decks quiet for a long time rather than sharing them with the community.  But let's be fair--more good decks have been shared by teams than hidden away.  Once a deck breaks out, it's not like the team that created it tries to hide their tech and not tell people how to play the deck.  Instead, they write articles, primers and/or start topic about the deck, sharing it with communitites.  

Getting more good, serious, dedicated players to join the vintage community would be an incredible boon.  For a lot of people, vintage is what happens at the local cardshop when you get to pull out your 5c sliver deck and go to town against some crappy goblin decks and the one person who actually has good cards and wins every time with the same deck (similar to the local 1.5 format that Hi-Val alluded to).  Obviously, this doesn't advance the format.  Tourneys allowing 5-10+ proxies (I always ran unlimited-proxy power tourneys to allow unpowered players to win power) are one important step toward getting more serious players into the format.  If you force people who don't have a lot of expensive cards to play a format that requires a lot of cards in the $300+ range to be competitive, it is much harder for these people to do well, and thus get excited, than if you allow them to proxy these big guns and focus on collecting the lesser cards in the $10-15 range.  

Proxy tourneys are the best thing to ever happen to vintage in terms of metagame evolution.    IMHO, having more proxy tourneys is more important than having more teams because people who play together don't need to be on a team to work together towards change, but having proxy tourneys can stimulate new players to enter the format and focus on good decks rather than on their non-competitive pet deck.  Teams may be good, but proxy tournaments are more important.

[rvs]

Oh please Covetous, don't turn this into another proxy-discussion ;/

[The Atog Lord]

Bad could result if these people simply start to win because a great player running a decent deck will win tourneys (think Nassif & EBA).

I'm not so sure that this would be all that bad. Let's suppose that some of the best players in the world started playing Type One. Would they win a lot? Of course, because of how good they are. But at the same time, they'd raise the bar on all of us, and thereby hopefully make us all a bit better in the process.

 You're never going to become a better player by beating little kids' Thallid.dec. However, if more people like Nassif played, that is just the sort of person who would teach us something and make us better at this game. If we, as a group of players, are not at Nassif's level, then its our own fault.

[Eastman]

There ought to be a guideline stating that teams who brag relentlessly when they meet with any success should also advertise when they meet with terrific failure (i.e. meandeck's new first turn scrubout deck)

[Saucemaster]

Something like 5 different threads on our deck, multiple mentions in reports, an interview with Knut at Richmond, and a forthcoming primer, all drawing attention to a deck that we unabashedly take credit for and totally tanked with?  And you don't think our failures are every bit as public as our successes?

[Matt]

Good article, but I'm vain enough that I would have liked to see a breakdown of each team. Possibly that would mean interviewing each team about their underlying structure. I don't think it would be giving away vital team secrets to say that I'm a lot more Mad Genius whereas TheAtogLord and Hyperion are more focused on being awesome players, for example.

[Saucemaster]

Good article, but I'm vain enough that I would have liked to see a breakdown of each team. Possibly that would mean interviewing each team about their underlying structure. I don't think it would be giving away vital team secrets to say that I'm a lot more Mad Genius whereas TheAtogLord and Hyperion are more focused on being awesome players, for example.

That's a great idea.  That would make a very cool sequel.

[Carthain]

There ought to be a guideline stating that teams who brag relentlessly when they meet with any success should also advertise when they meet with terrific failure (i.e. meandeck's new first turn scrubout deck)

Really, I think everyone who isn't part of that team makes it that way anyways.  And the nice thing is, Meandeck is just basically saying "yes, it's all true."

As for the article, it was nice and somewhat informative.  To me, what would be nice, would be to find out how the various teams discuss ideas (individual emails, or group list, or message boards) and test out ideas (online with apprentice/MWS, in person, etc.)

I'd also be curious if the existing teams have anything like a charter for which the team members are expected to follow: such as not being a spoilsport about loosing to manascrew (I know a friend who gets very, very vocal when he loses in such a manner) or any expectations on lending/borrowing cards from each other for tournaments.

[Triple_S]

That's a great idea. That would make a very cool sequel.

Perhaps each of the big teams can contribute a part to a collective huge article...sort of a who's who in the team aspect of competitive vintage.  Including (off the top of my head) Short Bus, Meandeck, CAB, Candadians, Reflection/Team Shay, Hadley, etc.

[Zherbus]

There ought to be a guideline stating that teams who brag relentlessly when they meet with any success should also advertise when they meet with terrific failure (i.e. meandeck's new first turn scrubout deck)

Oh, don't worry. Everyone that's not on Meandeck makes sure to boldy pronounce our failures. We've always discussed what went wrong publicly.

That's a great idea. That would make a very cool sequel.

I'd like to do it, but people who live in Iceland and aren't part of a known Vintage team might cry about it.

Seriously, I'd do it.

[Moxlotus]

I was quoted, I feel special.

How long ago did you start writing this article?  Because if I remember that correctly I wrote that months ago.

[JACO]

Vintage teams are pretty tight with each other or so I'd like to think. That said, while I won't call anyone in particular out in public, there has been some real "punch-in-the-balls" level sketchiness going around lately. Some of which has been aimed at my team, some at others.

While there has been much sketchiness, I'd just like to clarify that my comments in the Waterbury thread were not aimed at any team, nor were they meant as an attack on any individual. The aim of my posts were to demonstrate that withholding decklists is a practice that will only slow the development of decks in Type 1, and Type 1 as a GP-style format. If certain people, or teams for that matter, preach the development of Vintage as a format, then they should also recognize that the public information store is imperative to developing Vintage into a GP or PTQ-style format.

In Type 1 we get very excited when decklists are released, probably because it happens without regularity, and most of the information that is available in a timely manner in other formats just isn't regularly available in Vintage. This same problems plagues the new 1.5 format, and is part of the reason that format really hasn't taken off in a big-time way yet, when many of the other pieces are already in place to create a successful and widely-played format. If a team wants to keep their deck and its development secret before a tournament, and before they unleash it on the unsuspecting masses, I don't have any problems with that. But if that deck makes the Top 4/Top 8/Top 16/whatever, then let it be released to the public in a timely fashion, and let everybody get better as a result. Don't cite some crappy precedent that has been set in the past; but instead, set a new precedent going forward to help Vintage bloom.

Steve Menendian's article about the Type 1 metagame as seasonal fruit is almost entirely predicated on Vintage becoming a PTQ-style format, and without the dispersal of timely information for metagames 'shifts' to occur, you might as well just play the same deck over and over. Their won't be any real 'shifts,' just mediocre guesses about what others might play, and then medicore responses to those guesses. You can best judge what to play, or 'what deck/fruit is ready to be picked,' if you can accurately analyze what has been played in the immediate past.

There will be times when half of a huge tournaments Top 8 will be your team, and there will be times when your bowels just give out on you. It's always important to examine yourselves internally. What sort of system do you have in place? Where did it succeed or where did it fail? Are the teammates making the decisions making the correct calls?

This is one of the best parts of the article, and directly parallels to how Pro Tour caliber teams operate. After every 'team' performance at a tournament, it is important to examine the large and small details of how your team planned for the tournament, and to scrutinize where you went wrong in predicting or planning for the tournament, or executing in the tournament when you arrived. If you (as a team or individual) just brush off each loss as 'lucky topdecks,' 'mana screw,' or 'deck crapping out,' then you are ignoring the true mechanics of what make a tournament successful or not for your team. Besides hours of playtesting, simply reflecting on details is probably the best way to get better.

While this article is certainly well written, one of the things that might be addressed in one of your future articles about teams is the size and breadth of teams, and how this can impact medium and large tournaments. I don't know who's on what team anymore, nor do I really care, but to illustrate my example, let me pretend like I know how many people are in MeanDeck or ShortBus. When a team like MeanDeck goes to a SCG event in force, and arrive with 8-12 members out of 58-150 participants, this drastically improves their chances of placing in the top 8 or winning said event. This is much different than most of the other small to medium size teams (i.e. BHWC, who has 5 members, who attend mixed tournaments and typically never arrive in full force). I'm not complaining about team size or anything (nor do I think it's unfair in the least), but it is certainly an interesting thing worthy of discussion when you can have 10 people on one team roll into a tournament playing good decks, and then be able to scout and increase the odds of a team hitting the top 8. It is also interesting to see how a team of larger size interacts when they are paired against each other in the swiss, and what draws/concessions are made to help more teammates make the top 8; and conversely what inteference other teammates can do to try to stop others from making the top 8. These are the things that fall in line with what real Pro Tour teams do, and it would make for a good article (for those interested, at least).

[Lou]

I think that having teams not only improves the players that are in the team, as they are more likely to test together and brainstorm, but the shit talking that takes place brings the enjoyment of Magic to a whole new level.  Having decided to recently create a team with my 2 playtest partners, we can now talk shit and throw jibes at a whole group and make it fun and not be assholes directing our aggressions at a lone person.  The camaraderie from a team makes Magic, normally a one on one game, a lot more fun as well because you are now rooting for your bros, or bitches, to do well.  Nice article.