[Discussion] Format Imbalance or Fun?

[Mr. Fantazy]

Sorry to drag you down to the basement Steve. :lol:
Smmenen's Vintage thread.

The DCI has explcitly rejected my criteria for restriction after apparently following it for some time.

Matt wrote:
Metagame balance is nowhere near as important as fun. Right after Invasion was released, in one of the original Metagame Clock articles, the author noted that the Fires-dominated metagame was nowhere near as balanced as the Saga/Masques Standard had been. But that didn't matter, because people liked it more. And in that sense, no objective criteria for restriction amount to a hill of beans next to the subjective ones. It is not enough that a format be balanced, it must also be enjoyable, and I haven't enjoyed Type One in a very long time.  

 


Assuming thats true. Assuming that fun is more important than balance.

Who are we to assume is making this decision? Actually more to the point why would we assume this to begin with? If we take your first sentance which is refering to the DCI then the assumption is faulty. No where in that article does it say fun is more important then balance. Instead it seems to suggest that the two are both considerations.

Aaron Forsythe
We know what to do if a format is horribly unbalanced, but what do we do when it is equally unfun?

WotC seems pretty clear that both balance and fun are important.

Using Matt as an example of a player, and assuming players have a direct impact on these decisions, we see again someone who addresses both sides of the coin.

Matt
It is not enough that a format be balanced, it must also be enjoyable...

I am at a loss to see where the assumption that fun is more important then balance is comming from. Indeed it seems that the two are linked, and are often a product of each other, although at times one side may be a bit more relevent then the other.

1) Dark Ritual will eventually be restricted. It won't happen soon and but within a year, it will likely join the list. Now that 3sphere is gone, it will garner the most attention as the card that causes the most "unfun" in the format. Not becuase it will dominate. I don't even think Ritual decks will perform that well.

Dark Ritual easily fits into the mold of cards that should be restricted, cheap mana acceleration. However it is neither Dominating nor Unfun. In my opinion this trend is likely to remain unchanged. This is due to both "Combo Evolution" which boils down to the more combo decks refine themselves to protect themselves the worse they become, and combo has alot of weakness both to itself and abundant hate in all colors, which prevents it from dominating.

Ritual is not seen as an unfun card for a couple of reasons, one the card is seen as a staple, two it does nothing to the opponent itself, three there is a certin beauty and respect for watching combo go off, people tend to respect what it takes to make the machine work.

2) When Ritual is restricted, Mana Drain decks will dominate the format. Certainly they can be beaten. Certainly people will play aggro and aggro control to beat them. But they will be putting up 5-6+ players per top 8 consistently accross geographic boundaries.

Assuming Ritual does get the ax, this is possibly very close to true. Of course this is also assuming that;
A) The DCI doesn't get rid of Workshop and
B) R&D doesn't print another 3cc artifact that ends up "replacing" Trinisphere, either a direct replacement or a new archtype to build around.

Mana Drain decks are widely recognized as fun. People love control mirrors. They love playing their favorite Drain deck.

I wonder if there isn't actually two mindsets on this.
1) Control vs. Control is a very interactive game, with both players jockying for position and spell resolution. Such a game comes across as skill intensive and leaves the loser feeling like they may have become a better player. Of course this is a broad statement but I think you get the jist.

2) Mana Drain decks allow aggro to be played and even somewhat viable. Considering that most players started MTG by turning critters sideways, there would be a certin nostalgia for aggro being a less then piss poor option.

If Ritual is restricted and Drain dominates - will you care?

Probably not, but then I'm a control player with a love of aggro so a hypothetical format like you describe wouldn't bother me. On the other hand I do like diverse metagames.

Is fun so much more important than metagame variety and balance that we will tolerate Mana Drain being all over this format?

Again I think the two are linked, and at times both can be a more important consideration then the other, but both must be maintained in the long run. As for tolerating it, I'm pretty sure I'm not marching to war over a B&R list for a game.

And if so, what does that say about this format?

It says this is a game played by people who define fun and balance in different ways.

Shawn

[ascribe]

Trinisphere was released in Darksteel. So what in the world did we do prior to the card's printing? I do not recall combo dominating the metagame in any remarkable way since the restriction of LED and Burning Wish.

I think it is a stretch to say combo is going to run rampant when it still has one trinisphere along with four spheres of resistance with which to do battle.

[dexter]

@Smmenen

Seriously, i dont know what you been smoking that have made you lose your memory? Im sorry smennen, but honestly your armageddon, judgement day prophecys are starting to bugg me. Ever since trinisphere became restricted all i have seen you write is "the end is near combo will rule, ftk will be the norm etc etc bla bla yada yada". There acctually existed magic before darksteel, and from what i can remember from then it acctually werent any retarded FTK kombos, and from what i have seen there havent come any insane combolicous cards in Kami block or fifth dawn. The only decks right now that should be considered "dangerously fast" are Belcher, meandeck tendrils and to some extent dragon. At least dragon and belcher are very easy to stop.

Dragon dies to every hate in the enviroment.

Belcher is getting completly pwned by null or fow.

I wont say anything about meandeck tendrils since i acctually havent bother to test it, first impression says "CotV for 1 GG" so im not really afraid of that either.

So smennen can you acctually point out what makes you think that combo will be so godly now with trinisphere gone or are you just bitter that the DCI didnt take your advice and restricted welder?

[Cross]

@ Dexter, that was a little overt, at least spell his name right.

My problem with the trinisphere restriction is that why should we gauge how much fun we’re having as a reason to restrict a card? It seems like this would be a qualification for the banning of a casual card, not a card in a format that is based on competition.

Also, how can we logically measure the perceived “fun” of the format? I’m not having fun when I am losing, should we restrict cards I am losing against? I don’t think dragon is fun to play against, should we restrict dragon? The list goes on of things that are not fun to play against, but can you quantify that into a logical reason as to why we should impose restrictions? Are new/bad players/decks with no answers to trinisphere/whiners (most importantly) the problem? My bet is on that.

I think if dark ritual gets restricted it will be because of the new tutors we have access to, not because of the restriction of trinisphere; however, I think that this is really a non-issue because portal is legal for forever, there are still plenty of answers to combo (though non so strong) and that speculating on a format that does not exist yet is silly (much like spoiler discussions that are like card x is awesome/card x sucks etc. etc.)

As a community we should keep the discussion of restriction of any card to a minimum because the propagation of that discussion is observed by the leaders of the type 1 community, and the DCI themselves. I personally dislike discussions on restriction/banning because most arguments are not backed by definitive results (which should be the only reason we should ever discuss these topics); however, apparently that is a non-issue now because we are far more worried with how much “fun” we are having. Personally I would like to discuss a time-frame at which a card becomes problematic. Although objective we should look at the length of time at which card x, used in deck x, is dominating the format. As of recently there have been few decks with trinispheres that have put up legitimate numbers.

Unfortunately only people who have paid for access to SCG premium now have access to these numbers, and because of that we are most likely going to be recast into a situation where people who are worried about the dominance of a card cannot see the actual numeric dominance and resort to whining about the perceived “fun” they are having.

edit: fixed a logic problem. And I can respond to lotus without spamming another post.

I might feel different if I owned a playset of Shops, but Shop owners can play PLENTY of stuff without Trinisphere.

So restricting trinisphere depends on how many people on shops, most importantly you?

Myself, I am glad to see Trinisphere go, but would not have voted for it's restriction if I was on the committee.

What?! Clarify because this makes no sense.

I know that T1 can handle Trinisphere, but the DCI is looking out for the little fella. Hell, their NUKING Ravager Affinity showed that.

So we should restrict things because people who are new/people who suck have no answer to them? People who are new should learn the game, like everyone else has.

I think they restricted Trinisphere to give any Newbie a chance to play vintage...even if they will lose horribly to TMD caliber decks. They just won't die to Shop, Trinsphere-Go.

They will die on turn 6 from infinite Mindslaver recursion, or turn 2/3 TPS or turn 4 to Oath decks.

Perceived unfairness can be chalked up there with perceived fun. Also this makes no sense, as losing is losing and is just as "unfair" and "unfun" no matter how few cards you played.

[LotusHead]

Imbalance or Fun?

The DCI watches over Vintage Magic only because we MADE Magic.  They don't make money off us, they make money off T2/Draft.

That's OK.  But they still respect the fact that Vintage exists despite the fact that in the last 2 sets (Champions and Betrayers), there are maybe 6 playable cards for Vintage players. (as opposed to Mirroden which was a gift from them to us.)

I think they restricted Trinisphere to give any Newbie a chance to play vintage...even if they will lose horribly to TMD caliber decks.  They just won't die to Shop, Trinsphere-Go.

They will die on turn 6 from infinite Mindslaver recursion, or turn 2/3 TPS or turn 4 to Oath decks.

But they will not die on turn 0.  They might actually get to play a spell.

Myself, I am glad to see Trinisphere go, but would not have voted for it's restriction if I was on the committee.  I know that T1 can handle Trinisphere, but the DCI is looking out for the little fella.  Hell, their NUKING Ravager Affinity showed that.

I might feel different if I owned a playset of Shops, but Shop owners can play PLENTY of stuff without Trinisphere.

[Toad]

June B&R Announcement.
Control Magic and Swords to Plowshares are restricted.

Justification : having your creatures stolen or destroyed is no fun.

[Imsomniac101]

I still don't see why people enjoy control mirrors. The games almost always last to time and even then there could be no clear winner. How does this make magic more fun?

[Metanoia]

June B&R Announcement.
Control Magic and Swords to Plowshares are restricted.

Justification : having your creatures stolen or destroyed is no fun.

Aw c'mon Toad, it's not THAT bad is it?

I think there are two kinds of 'not fun' we shouldn't confuse.

There is 'i lost a game and although the game was intense, losing is never any fun'

and there is 'i didn't even get to play a game and that wasn't any fun'

If you lose because your Akroma got controlled you were outplayed and at least had a chance. If you lose to turn 1 Trinisphere, turn 2 Crucible you never had a chance.

now although this is a bit black/white it does help to clear the issue.

[Nova442]

"Unrecoverable early game swing"

That's always the criteria I considered 3sphere was most likely to get restricted under and "no fun" just follows from that.  On its own 3 basic lands beat it, but when you add ANY other lock piece in the turns following a first turn 3sphere the game is over before it started.

If I'm supposed to address the topic directly I would say that balance is primary and fun important, but secondary.  The restriction criteria has always been fairly straightforward, we just don't see many restrictions based on early game swing.  Instead, most restrictions come when a deck becomes too powerful (dominance criteria).

Honestly, what was the last card that was restricted because of early game swing alone without dominance?

[Freelancer]

IMHO I doubt that this is the beginning of the new combo winter or that mana drain type off decks will rule the day (granted if ritual get's restricted they will). The best example is that even a turn 1 70%+ win percentage deck couldn't win against the rest off the field (if I recall correctly non of the meandeckers saw a turn 1 trinisphere) even though it can win through force of will.
What suprises me the most is that smmenen keeps saying that combo will rule, while he got stopped by a unsuspecting field while piloting meandeck SX...

Format balance is equally important than having fun...
Since a unbalanced format is not fun either, and being on the receiving end off trinisphere is certainly not fun and interactive...
The people that say that they are not going to tournaments to have fun are playing this game for the wrong reasons (you can't make a living or earn insane amounts off cash with vintage)...
The game is meant to be fun...

[dexter]

@ toad

since i havent bothered to try to get accesses to "pimp" t1 forum il just ask you here about what i saw there.

You say trinisphere is fun, but in the same time you claim that you HATE xantid swarm because you cant counter anything your opponent does. Can you please explain that logic to me, both cards says "HA you cant play spells even if you want!"

Please help me understand your logic

[Outlaw]

I believe the "limit" of interaction between Trinisphere and the players is a mindless statement.  It is really a double edged sword, for a few reasons.  Good players can play around trinisphere, the format had adjusted to crucible's appearance and at the same time had adjusted to the inclusion of trinisphere, fetches and basics are easy enough to run and play with, period.   Trinisphere is an artifact, it can be rebulit and destroyed easy enough, but that leads to the other side of the sword.  When a player drops a trinisphere you spend the rest of your game either playing around it or trying to remove it, thats why this is double edged.  

You ask is the format imbalanced or fun?  I believe the format is fun, and it all balances out.  If you are a good player, chances are someone with just drop the absolute nuts on you, or you will loose to a random scrub because that stuff just happens.  There are things like xantid swarms and combo decks that will limit your interaction but that is what they are suppose to do.  The format balances because agaisnt that same combo deck you can just pull off the most broken play ever and make them simply cry, it happens.  I believe the format was balanced before trinispheres restriction and it was fun, now I feel drain based decks may pull slightly ahead of the game more, and since I play drain decks it will be fun.  :lol:

[Dante]

June B&R Announcement.
Control Magic and Swords to Plowshares are restricted.

Justification : having your creatures stolen or destroyed is no fun.

having a resource (card/token) destoyed or stolen (or countered) is a lot more "fun" than not ever being able to cast that resource, especially since it takes resources from the other side to destroy/steal your resource.

[Harlequin]

What I don’t understand about the 3sphere restriction is why go after the underdog?  Arguable there are 4 main deck archetypes that exist in Type1, Tier1.  
In 1st: Control-Combo/Agro (includes control slaver, oath, and grow-a-tog).
In 2nd: Pure Combo (includes TPS, Longdeath, and Belcher, and Dragon)
In 3rd: Prison / Prison-Agro (includes Stax, 7/10, and The Manshow ... basically any deck that runs MWS, 3sphere, and crucible with LD)
In 4th: Pure aggro – Madness, ravager-affinity, decks that don’t have a single card to do damage.

The way I rank them is from looking at the top 8 standings.  I’m no expert but this is what I have observed from browsing around the tourney results.  If 3sphere was Sooo soul crushingly good, why don’t prison decks get into top 8 more regularly?

Also LotusHead made the argument in regards to new players to the format “They will die on turn 6 from infinite Mindslaver recursion, or turn 2/3 TPS or turn 4 to Oath decks.  But they will not die on turn 0. They might actually get to play a spell.”  If people are arguing that the MWS -> 3sphere combo is so easy and so mindless… why not use this to the newbie’s advantage?  I have suggested to new players in the past “proxy 4 MWS, and play with 4 Trinisphere and make a mono-brown artifact deck, and you’ll win a few matches.”   They wont win all the time but they may be able to get a rogue win against combo or something of that nature, and feel good about themselves.  A lot better than loosing turn X on every game, wouldn’t you say?

Also as for the un-fun-ness of the combo, you have to realize that an opening hand with MWS and Trinisphere is only soft lock, and it buys maybe 3-5 turns if you played first.  And you need Trinisphere, MWS, Crucible, and Stripmine to have a 2nd turn hard lock.  Let be serious… your going to pull those 5 cards (one of wich is restricted) maybe once in 100 games.  The other way is with 4 mana and smoke stack instead of stripmine, wich can be pulled maybe 1 in 25 games.  Realistically your going to need to tutor up at least 1, if not 2 pieces of the combo.  In order to hard lock… So were talking maybe 5-8 turns, granted your opponent cant cast spells for the first 3 turns, but is that any worse than dieing turn 3 to combo or control combo?
Look at the criteria you have to fill to get a first turn soft lock:
-   opening hand you need MWS or land Crypt, and 3sphere
-   to win the flip, or loose previous game
-   opponent to not have FOW / pitch in hand
Look at what Oath needs to have a solid turn 3 kill
-   you need Forbiden orchard, Mox, and oath (or 1 land 1 orchard for turn 4 kill)
-   you need FOW  Or your opponent to not have FOW
-   Flip would be nice, but not necessarily devastating to loose flip

My final note is that I mainly play belcher but over the past like month or so, ive been build stax… as a new deck to try… a deck that really has to know the rules about turn structure (and upkeep structure) to be played well.  A deck that I think requires more skill than belcher did.  But now that 3 sphere is restricted, so much for that idea!  It almost feels like deep down people are upset that a $2 rare from a recent set coupled with a proxied MW/S is somehow stronger than the X hundred dollars they had to invest to build control slaver.  Is that it?  Of the people who support the restriction, what deck to you normally bring to the table?  

The last point I want to add is one that has already been made, but up till now restrictions had nothing to do with fun.  EVERY restricted card falls under one of these categories:  Draw, Search, Cheap mana Acceleration, and Super-Cheap destruction (ie stripmine balance mindtwist).  Can one really argue that 3sphere belongs in the same category as stripmine, balance, and mindtwist?  If so should we start looking at restricting Xantid swarm, Arcane lab, Orim chant, and chalice of the void?

[Cross]

having a resource (card/token) destoyed or stolen (or countered) is a lot more "fun" than not ever being able to cast that resource, especially since it takes resources from the other side to destroy/steal your resource.

Obviously his point was that it is ridiculous to gauge the level of fun based on an interraction to interraction basis. You obviously missed this as you then tried to do so.

The real problem with the "fun" argument against trinisphere is that terms like "interraction" and "fun" are completely objective terms and cannot be gauged on any sort of scale. Restricting trinisphere because it is not fun is just like restricting control magic because it is not fun. We need to look at cards based on dominance not on perceived objective emotions.

[Harlequin]

I aslo want to add that if 3sphere is so Un-Fun?  how come ppl arnt takeing up torches against septer control?  how is Orim's on a stick any different?

[Matt]

I am at a loss to see where the assumption that fun is more important then balance is comming from. Indeed it seems that the two are linked, and are often a product of each other, although at times one side may be a bit more relevent then the other.

When the format is fun but not balanced, people will try to attack the dominating decks. They make up new strategies, new decks, and throw them at the dominating force and try to stop the juggernaut. Sometimes they do so, and sometimes not, and then stuff gets restricted.

When a format is balanced but not fun, people stop playing altogether. You tell me which is worse.

Of course balance and fun are both important but when they are in conflict it isn't ever in doubt as to which prevails.

[dicemanx]

It's amazing that grasping such a simple concept eludes so many people.

I like vintage because it is a format that is both skill intensive and because it is filled with broken cards that allow for broken plays. I play T1 because it has Moxes, Lotus, Ancestral Recall, Mishra's Workshop, Mana Drain, and a whole host of other "broken" cards. This is why I consider the format fun. But there is a delicate balance here between skill and brokenness (ie the luck element). Trinisphere upset that balance to an unacceptable extent.

I did adapt to Trini. A lot of good players did. I have beaten first turn Trinispheres many times. The card was still beyond an acceptable threshhold.  

Regarding the definition of "fun": Whether you're a casual player or you enjoy the fierce competition, you play the game because it's fun. If you argue against this point you must be some sort of masochist. Forsythe did not make a distinction between the two "definitions", because a distinction did not need to be made. Trinisphere removed too much of the skill element from games, and this reduced the "fun" of tournament T1 magic. I thought this was as clear as day. Evidently it wasn't.

So please return to making the inane comparisons and lamentations of how "fun factor" should not be a b/r criterion.

[Dante]

having a resource (card/token) destoyed or stolen (or countered) is a lot more "fun" than not ever being able to cast that resource, especially since it takes resources from the other side to destroy/steal your resource.

Obviously his point was that it is ridiculous to gauge the level of fun based on an interraction to interraction basis. You obviously missed this as you then tried to do so.

The real problem with the "fun" argument against trinisphere is that terms like "interraction" and "fun" are completely objective terms and cannot be gauged on any sort of scale. Restricting trinisphere because it is not fun is just like restricting control magic because it is not fun. We need to look at cards based on dominance not on perceived objective emotions.

I agree, it's hard to gauge the level of fun on an interaction-to-interaction basis.  But what's not hard to see is that is that not getting to cast a spell until your third turn is NOT fun.  That is pretty straightforward.

As for arguments about Xantid Swarm and Chalice - these cards are destroyed by a WIDE variety of cards.  The card itself doesn't prevent you from playing removal (in Swarm's case you must do it on your turn and in Chalice case you must vary the casting cost).  

Arcane Lab - opponent casts it, it resolves.  Then you disenchant/whatever it.  They cannot do anything about it.  Or when you get your disenchant, you wait until their turn after they cast a spell, then get it EOT.

People aren't up in arms about scepter chant because it hasn't been good yet.  It's a 2-card combo that is card disadvantage off the bat.  Ugh.

I don't understand why people don't see how Trinisphere wasn't fun.  With all the cards mentioned above, there's nothing preventing you from removing it if it's played turn 1, unlike trinisphere.

So can we please stop the nonsense about Swarm, Chalice, Control Magic etc.  All of those while they disrupt the opponents game plan, they don't have the built-in early game protection 3sphere did.  If someone plays a turn 1 swarm, nothing prevents you from lava dart-ing it.  With 3sphere, even if you have 3 land, 2 mox, rack and ruin, if you go second, you can't do ANYTHING until the opponent gets 2 more turns first.

I think we should get back on topic - should the DCI be aiming for a balanced metagame or a fun metagame?

Obviously one extreme is a bunch of turn 1 combo decks where no one gets a second turn.  That's balanced but not fun (I think we can all agree on that).

The problem comes from defining fun and I think it's where people are all caught up.  Don't try and define fun.  Just try and define "not fun enough to want to play type 1 anymore".  Turn 1 Trinisphere was like that in my book.  [note that doesn't necessarily mean I was in favor of restricting it.  If you had asked me, I would have said leave it.]

It's like the judicial quote about porn/indecency - "I can't define it exactly, but I know it when I see it".  Think about "fun" the same way - you can't define exactly what it is, but you know when you're not having it.  [and yes, if someone STPs your timmy-creature, that may not be fun to you, but you can play more timmy-creatures]

[CHA1N5]

But what's not hard to see is that is that not getting to cast a spell until your third turn is NOT fun.  That is pretty straightforward.

Don't confuse opinion with fact.  

It's this kind of statement that reveals a person's bias in this discussion.  I still enjoy games like this, from either side, Because (as supporters of sentiment like this like to glaze over) they still have many layers of strategy and choice.  If you need help with examples of said, I'll provide them, but please just take it as a given that this statement is NOT patently true or straightforward.

Trinisphere is a meta-mechanic of T1, just like Mana Drain, Dark Ritual, Wasteland, Null Rod and Force of Will.  I view preparing for each of those cards as the price of admission.  I'm pretty sure that each one of you understands this notion, it's just that many of you think the price is too high.

[Harlequin]

@ Dante

People aren't up in arms about scepter chant because it hasn't been good yet. It's a 2-card combo that is card disadvantage off the bat. Ugh.

MWS Trinisphere is a 2 card combo, and septer is imidiate card disadvantage with long run card advantage.  Exactly the same as trinisphere.  

As for arguments about Xantid Swarm and Chalice - these cards are destroyed by a WIDE variety of cards. The card itself doesn't prevent you from playing removal (in Swarm's case you must do it on your turn and in Chalice case you must vary the casting cost).

Trinisphere aslo hurts a WIDE variety of cards... but it does not effect cards that cost more than 2 mana to play, right?  players who expect to beat trisphere have built decks with limited non-basic lands and large amounts of fetch.  and they are sucessful


Aslo dicemanx admited to actually beating a first turn 3sphere as many other player out there can also atest to.  Infact even with belcher i have "brought home the bacon" after a first turn trinisphere.  And guess what... that game i had great FUN.  bc i beat a matchup where my deck is the underdog.  Every deck has a combo of cards that just make your eyes light up and make it super hard for your opponent to win.  and those hands are randomly drawn from time to time.  does stax have the best odds of getting those types of hands... maybe ... but someone has to be the best.  Im going to use my powers of mathematics and combinatoric to actually get a rough calc on the actual 'odds' of drawing 3sphere win in stax.

The problem comes from defining fun and I think it's where people are all caught up. Don't try and define fun. Just try and define "not fun enough to want to play type 1 anymore". Turn 1 Trinisphere was like that in my book.

The way i see this phenomenon is that loosing to a turn one trinisphere doesnt happen that much... but when it  does happen, it sticks out in peoples minds for a long time and it makes them soar.  I think ppl need to contemplate for every time you get turn 1 trinisphere, how many times did you pull off a sickening turn 1?  how many times have you had your opponent beaten / scoop turn 3 or 4?  and did your opponent really feel that much more statifaction knowing that they played a xantid swarm who got darted, and a welder who got drained... were they having more fun than you when you got 1st turn 3sphered?

[Rico Suave]

I still don't see why people enjoy control mirrors. The games almost always last to time and even then there could be no clear winner. How does this make magic more fun?

I enjoy playing control mirrors because, in my opinion, a control mirror is the most skill intensive match this game has to offer.  

There are far more subtleties, nuances, timing complications, and tempo issues that come up in a control mirror that never come up in any other match.  At any point, during any turn, the game can go to hell.  If a control player's defenses are not up all the time, even if only for an instant, that player has just opened up a path for the opponent to play around the opponent's cards and resolve a key spell.  In doing so that player has just found a pressure point, gained leverage, and made things happen.  This is how a poor hand can overcome a strong hand, and why the control mirror is the one match that I feel truly is the best representation of skill a player can perform (in Constructed, at least).

Maybe that's just me, but other noted people have also said as such.

[MuzzonoAmi]

You might be on to something with that. Perhaps it's not that preparing for Trini was too difficult - but that it was one constraint on playing and deck design too many.

[Conan_barberarn]

Look at the criteria you have to fill to get a first turn soft lock:
-   opening hand you need MWS or land Crypt, and 3sphere
-   to win the flip, or loose previous game
-   opponent to not have FOW / pitch in hand
Look at what Oath needs to have a solid turn 3 kill
-   you need Forbiden orchard, Mox, and oath (or 1 land 1 orchard for turn 4 kill)
-   you need FOW  Or your opponent to not have FOW
-   Flip would be nice, but not necessarily devastating to loose flip

You missed a few points about the opening criteria.
- Opening hand you need trini+ MWS or 1mana land+ crypt or land+ vault or Lotus or Tomb+ mox or 2xmox+ 1mana land or.... This list goes on for quite a while. You may now argue that land+vault opening isn't that good but eventually you would find that shop/tomb and just break the lock.

After a 1st turn trini resolves, all you can do is prey

One thing on the FoW vs 3sphere: Who woould not FoW a 1st turn trini? Isn't a card that, combined with a 4of land, allways atracts fow (if he has it) a little to good?

One thing on SoR vs Trini: Combo players allways tend to say how simple it is to get out from either lock. If a 1st turn trini resolves, you allways have 3 basics + rebuild and then go off the following turn. If a 1st turn SoR resolves, you just play land, mox, mox, then another land and rebuild or you claim that is easy to go off with SoR on the table. let's face it, you won't have that good hands all the time.

/Gustav

[Harlequin]

You might be on to something with that. Perhaps it's not that preparing for Trini was too difficult - but that it was one constraint on playing and deck design too many.

Thats exactly what we need.  Vintage has (recently) been a bit of a "Rock, Paper, Scissors" match.  Every deck has weak matchups and strong matchups.  The deck you choose and the modifictions you make ALWAYS have a push-pull effect on your matchups.  if there was one deck the had equal and good odds of beating ALL other mechanic/builds, EVERYONE would play THE SAME DECK.  Then Vintage would become a game of luck.  
But thanks MuzzonoAmi, you have touched on the point i was trying to make eariler.  The reason Orim's on a Stick isnt in the spotlite is  becuase not many people play it.  But it seams Just enough people play with 3sphere for some ppl to get upset by it.  at the last waterburry i played against 1 TSP, 1 belcher, 3 Slavors, and 1 misc deck (dumptruck-esq).  i didnt face any septer control or stax.  after that i rebuilt my deck to be face control slavor better.  In belcher my side has 2 ground seals on it, in place of viridian shawman (this was even BEFORE the R&B updates).  When i made this change i admited to myself, ill loose more games to Null Rods and Trinisphere, but Win more games against Control slaver.

[Harlequin]

You missed a few points about the opening criteria.
- Opening hand you need trini+ MWS or 1mana land+ crypt or land+ vault or Lotus or Tomb+ mox or 2xmox+ 1mana land or.... This list goes on for quite a while. You may now argue that land+vault opening isn't that good but eventually you would find that shop/tomb and just break the lock.

Land Valut, or Lotus, dont give you an advantage with trinsphere because you end up in the same place - You cant cast spells either.  Aslo not all builds run tomb.  So true the list goes on, but you have to consider that the sinarios i described are the sinarios that lead to the set up of "I can cast spells, and you cant"  aslo i supose the land double mox does techincally count, but i wouldnt bet the farm on drawing Trisphere land double mox in 7 cards.  [/quote]

[CHA1N5]

One thing on the FoW vs 3sphere: Who woould not FoW a 1st turn trini?

Apparently, Randy Buehler.

[Mr. Fantazy]

My problem with the Trinisphere restriction is that why should we gauge how much fun we’re having as a reason to restrict a card? It seems like this would be a qualification for the banning of a casual card, not a card in a format that is based on competition.

One reason the DCI/WotC must take the fun element into consideration is that if a game is not fun, people will not play it. If people don’t play a game, a company has no reason to produce the game, if they don’t make the game there will be no competition.

June B&R Announcement.
Control Magic and Swords to Plowshares are restricted.
Justification : having your creatures stolen or destroyed is no fun.

All sarcasm aside, I assume that you can see the difference between being able to actually play spells that can be countered, stolen, or destroyed, and just sitting there wishing you could cast something. This really adds no helpful content to this discussion, full members deliberately spamming threads = the suck, especially when they like to point out how bad open threads often become.

I still don't see why people enjoy control mirrors. The games almost always last to time and even then there could be no clear winner. How does this make magic more fun?

Personally I like them because they are highly interactive and skill intensive. From bluffing to actual decision making, you must be constantly on the ball. However I readily accept that a lot of players find them boring.

If you lose because your Akroma got controlled you were outplayed and at least had a chance. If you lose to turn 1 Trinisphere, turn 2 Crucible you never had a chance.

Well put, the word “fun” seems to suddenly have been blown out of all acceptable proportion.

The real problem with the "fun" argument against Trinisphere is that terms like "interaction" and "fun" are completely objective terms and cannot be gauged on any sort of scale. Restricting Trinisphere because it is not fun is just like restricting control magic because it is not fun. We need to look at cards based on dominance not on perceived objective emotions.

Apparently the DCI has a scale that they feel is reasonable and objective. It seems to me that too many people are attempting to read too much into the word “fun”. It seems a matter of common sense that being able to cast your spells even if they result in the “unfun” situation of being destroyed or stolen is a lot more fun then sitting there under Trinisphere for 3 turns wondering if you’ll get to ever cast anything. I would again refer to this post

If you lose because your Akroma got controlled you were outplayed and at least had a chance. If you lose to turn 1 Trinisphere, turn 2 Crucible you never had a chance.

@Matt
I agree with a lot of your sentiments on this issue. I think the two things are very interconnected and dependant on each other. From a business perspective, it makes perfect sense that fun should win out, as I alluded to above.

Regarding the definition of "fun": Whether you're a casual player or you enjoy the fierce competition, you play the game because it's fun. If you argue against this point you must be some sort of masochist. Forsythe did not make a distinction between the two "definitions", because a distinction did not need to be made. Trinisphere removed too much of the skill element from games, and this reduced the "fun" of tournament T1 magic. I thought this was as clear as day. Evidently it wasn't.

Thanks dicemanx, very well put, self evident points are often the hardest to see.

The card itself doesn't prevent you from playing removal

This point is very much at the heart of both the beauty and problem of Trinisphere. Your whole post is a worthwhile read, but I must say I wish I had of thought of this first….

It's like the judicial quote about porn/indecency - "I can't define it exactly, but I know it when I see it". Think about "fun" the same way - you can't define exactly what it is, but you know when you're not having it. [and yes, if someone STPs your timmy-creature, that may not be fun to you, but you can play more timmy-creatures]
 

@Rico Suave
Very good description. You leave little else to say.


@MuzzonoAmi
This is a thought that merits some deeper thought.








Over all there are several good posts, the one thing I would say is not many have actually answered Smmenen’s posed question.




Shawn

[AnFgangsta]

The Vintage format  is increadibly fun, I mean first off we get to use the real gems of magic, and to see, let alone be able to play with these cards is just amazing. Its also a lot more diverse in that Extended for example has like 3 or 4 decks..thats it, anything else really isnt Teir 1.

Vintage has many many deck archtypes which after sideboard have a real good chance against the so called "Tier 1" decks. For example, Slaver..which many say is the best deck out there. I saw today a build of R/G which I am very excited to have seen, this deck has answers to Stax, Slaver, Oath, and the rest of those which the deck could not take down before.  The key was switching the decks main focus from fatty's to utility, now the deck is very very good. Im still playing around with it deciding what else may fit in hte deck and what might need to be changed around.

The point is, you can revamp old decks with all of the cards in the format..you have access to everything, so really every deck has its weakness, the key is to find the card(s) that exploit this weakness the best. Its almost like a puzzle and thats what I really like.  Not only this, but Vintage houses by far the best players in the game, and to meet them, and learn what you can from these people is also special because you can take it into other formats.

There is no imbalance in the format, or if there is its not as big as people like to say it is.  I have ventured to the Extended, Type II and the other forums here on brainburst and they seem to think Type 1 games end first turn LoL  This is what I would like to call the Long.Dec complex.  We have seeing extreme exaggeration of deck speeds, and I feel that is what turns some poeple off about the format.

  Power is also crucial in the format, or atleast in many decks. Its a well known fact that you are limited as to what you can play without power but unpowered decks can still kick some serious ass, now Im not saying budget decks can, although we did see Fish as a powerhouse for a while, and R/G may be resurrected with this new build, its tight.  Its fun though finding what you can play to win and overcome the power of...power LoL

We must also define what you mean by the Vintage format..you can definately make a great deal from simply playing at your local store.  Week after week it all adds up and before you know it, you have some power, and then move up to playing at Hadley or Waterbury.  

This step by step idea helps build players knowlege and confidence, its a great feeling to be able to look back at your first deck, first tournament, and where you are now, seeing how your collection has grown and how you yourself have grown as a player.  Truly a great feeling, and again, you dont have to go out and get new cards every few months and find a way to get rid of your now useless cards, ya know?  Some people enjoy playing a gerat deal, but dont have the time to constantly stay in touch with the format, the new trends, nor have the ability to keep updating, that is another reason why Vintage rules.  

You can have endless fun in Vintage because even randomness can get you far, sure you may not win Waterbury, but fun decks like "Gigastomp" are created, just a lot of fun to watch and play, and their success at say your local shop.  Ive had some great times at my local shop, some of my favorites in magic actually.  The great thing about the format is you can take your own time to advance, having fun becomes possible since you are not under time constraints as to when your deck rotates out, Vintage is always time friendly.

[Cross]

Regarding the definition of "fun": Whether you're a casual player or you enjoy the fierce competition, you play the game because it's fun. If you argue against this point you must be some sort of masochist.

This is very much a distortion of my point. I find enjoyment from the level of competition in vintage, not on a card by card basis. Such an idea is neither inane nor lamenting. I think this is a legitimate problem with such a criterion. There’s no way to say that card X is Y% not fun, and therefore we should restrict it. We can say that card X is appearing at a rate of Y% in top 8s for a period of Z amount of time and therefore we should restrict it (although some people can't due to these articles being premium).

One reason the DCI/WotC must take the fun element into consideration is that if a game is not fun, people will not play it. If people don’t play a game, a company has no reason to produce the game, if they don’t make the game there will be no competition.

Plenty of people have been playing vintage as of late, and people who quit specifically because of trinisphere were just unwilling to adapt to a great card. More importantly Buehler himself said that they don’t even consider type 1 when they’re making cards, the game is not made for us.

I also feel that idea that trinisphere removed too much skill element from the games is pretty ridiculous. I did feel this way originally, but that was when I was play u/r fish, which was wildly unprepared for such a play. Like CHAIN5 said, the better players adapted to trinisphere. It was a facet of the meta game that was readily expected and easy to play around. As a TPS player I was never worried about the first turn trini because I knew that when I was ready I could rebuild their board and win. There was always the threat of turn 2 crucible strip, but the chances of that are way lower then the chances of you having force and a blue card.