Article -- Trinisphere, and Does Fun Mean Interactivity in T

[Klep]

I disagree completely, I feel that the argument remains.  I think those in the DCI only human and as such they are prone to errors.  It is possible that this restriction is one such error.  Not because of any impacts on the format currently, but because of the way in which it was justified.

I think it's pretty clear that the argument failed, because Trinisphere got restricted.  If the argument had succeded, we'd still have 4 trinis to worry about.  Pretty much everyone except sadomasochists and bad players who used it to lucksack their way into wins agrees that Trinisphere did a lot to damage the fun level of the format, and ultimately, that's what the point of playing Magic is.

[dicemanx]

I think those in the DCI only human and as such they are prone to errors. It is possible that this restriction is one such error. Not because of any impacts on the format currently, but because of the way in which it was justified.

Well, welcome to decision making with respect to the b/r list in T1, where it will rarely be based on hard "proof" but instead largely on theory or intuition. As cssamerican noted, apart from Gush we had restrictions in the last few years that weren't based on top 8 data.  Many, in fact, were apparently based on "unrecoverable early game swings" (such as all the fast combo components). This is determined based on individual games and even goldfishing, and it might not manifest itself in dominance that so many people are seeking as "proof" of the correctness of restricting a particular card/nuking an archetype.

Another point: I wouldn't judge any b/r decision as an "error". Because our format isn't very prone to change since no set ever rotates out, shaking things up by restricting or unrestricting cards could be seen as a good thing. Can you think back to any recent decision made by the DCI that you can identify as a clear error? I think the decisions just made things *different*, and forced people to adjust and adapt to the new environment.  

Actually control slaver was dominating and it will probably continue to do well.

It's debatable whether Control Slaver is as dominant as people think it is, as the arguments put forth for its apparent dominance were based on some selective data. Additionally, I have argued before that CS's rise to the top was in part tied in to the horrible skewing of the environment by both CoW and Trini (we argued previously that CoW was one of the main offenders that should have been considered for restriction). It pushed out all the top control decks that couldn't adjust effectively, leaving behind those that could run so many basics/fetches - Control Slaver and U/g Oath (which was a step up from mono-U). With no Trini to worry about, I expect a few control or aggro control decks to make a return, as they will no longer have to worry about getting reamed by that retarded abomination of a card.

[Diakonov]

It's debatable whether Control Slaver is as dominant as people think it is, as the arguments put forth for its apparent dominance were based on some selective data. Additionally, I have argued before that CS's rise to the top was in part tied in to the horrible skewing of the environment by both CoW and Trini (we argued previously that CoW was one of the main offenders that should have been considered for restriction). It pushed out all the top control decks that couldn't adjust effectively, leaving behind those that could run so many basics/fetches - Control Slaver and U/g Oath (which was a step up from mono-U). With no Trini to worry about, I expect a few control or aggro control decks to make a return, as they will no longer have to worry about getting reamed by that retarded abomination of a card.

I think there exists some solid data to show that of all the top decks in the format, Slaver was the most dominant.  In fact, your following statement highlights the exact reasons why- because it was capable of adjusting to Trinisphere.  This is why, such as stated in my previous post, I believe that Trinisphere shouldn't be argued as "too powerful" to warrant its restriction, but rather due to the heavy distortion it caused to the format.

While initially it seemed that Trinisphere would really only harm combo decks, it has been shown that many combo decks today practically consider Trinisphere matches to be favorable.  Thus, the major effect Trinisphere had on our existing format was to nearly eliminate aggro (especially with the help of Oath and DSC) and to hold down some of the more diverse control decks.  Very backwards from what was expected.

A lot of people didn't like this bizarre distortion.  A lot of people would label this as, "unfun."  From the DCI's point of view, they are thinking, "Wow, a lot of people are complaining about Trinisphere.  We can either let this continue, or we can restrict it and hear the opposing side complain for a couple weeks.  Once the format adjusts, they'll shut up."  Also, this decision will probably equal $$$ for Wizards.

I think people are looking into this decision far too deeply.

[Toad]

Drain Slaver didn't adjust to Trinisphere or Crucible of Worlds, and didn't become good because of these two cards.

Drain Slaver has been winning tournaments in Europe (including major ones such as Duelmen) since December 2003, that is 3 monthes before Trinisphere became legal in T1. The deck was simply not played in the US or Canada. But It was already extremely powerful and on top, despite Aggro-Control and Aggro decks still being "good".

[forests failed you]

I would attribute Control Slaver’s rise to prowess much more on the fact that it mauls most of the other control decks in the format, much more than its resiliency to waste effects.  The fact that the deck plays a one red mana 1/1 that must be answered in a turn, or otherwise destroys an opponent's entire game plan is fairly good against decks that play Mana Drain.  Also, the fact that Welder’s ability is a house against Stax and 5/3’s own threats makes the match up even more favorable.  The basic land factor is an added bonus.

The very fact that the top Mana Drain based deck, Control Slaver, and combo decks playing multiple Rebuild and Chain of Vapor main deck, TPS, both had solid game against Workshop based strategies is what makes Trinisphere’s restriction so frustrating.  Most of the top table match ups were already shakey at best and with the removal of one of the deck’s most potent weapons it becomes even worse.  Windfall and I had been inventing tech and testing a Stax alternate for about a month, and finally had it optimized so the Slaver and TPS match ups were favorable, and with one fell swoop its back to the Drawing board.  It is annoying; to say the very least, that one of the key cards keeping an entire archetype viable in a field full of hate needed to be nixed because dumbasses playing fish aren’t having fun with their bad decks.

[Smmenen]

The question that the interactivity debate raises is fairly straightforward: was restricting Trinisphere a mistake?  The answer is most likely YES.   It simply wasn't warranted under any standard but the number of irrational complaints that Wizards was getting.  Trinisphere wasn't dominating and it wasn't even causing any problem.

The only complaint was that it was skillless.  That was merely a complaint by people who weren't sufficiently skilled themselves.  The not fun complaint is reflected in the fact that what people really want is just a format dominated by mana drain.   Which is really, really stupid.

[dicemanx]

OK, I'd like one thing clarified.

Was Trinisphere actually doing *anything* against the top tier decks? It seems that according to many "experts" Trini was too easy to play around. And yet there are many that suggest that Stax and other Workshop decks relied so heavily on the card to be competitive. So which is it then? Also, how do you justify the strength of an archetype based on a roughly 20% play (odds of winning the coin flip and getting a first turn Trini into play)?

If Trinisphere *was* in fact keeping top level decks honest, do we not have a problem with the *manner* in which Trinisphere did the job? (ie effectively win on turn 1?). If this was holding the balance in the environment, then I'm sorry, but that's the wrong way to do it.

It is annoying; to say the very least, that one of the key cards keeping an entire archetype viable in a field full of hate needed to be nixed because dumbasses playing fish aren’t having fun with their bad decks.

It needed to be nixed so dumbasses couldn't just plop it down turn 1 and claim a victory so easily and mindlessly.

The question that the interactivity debate raises is fairly straightforward: was restricting Trinisphere a mistake? The answer is most likely YES. It simply wasn't warranted under any standard but the number of irrational complaints that Wizards was getting. Trinisphere wasn't dominating and it wasn't even causing any problem.

The only complaint was that it was skillless. That was merely a complaint by people who weren't sufficiently skilled themselves. The not fun complaint is reflected in the fact that what people really want is just a format dominated by mana drain. Which is really, really stupid.

LOVE the ad hominems Steve.

If you argue for Trini's restriction, you obviously must be:

Not skilled enough.

Irrational.

Unable to present any convincing arguments for its restriction, because apparently there aren't any. Heh.

[Smmenen]

OK, I'd like one thing clarified.

Was Trinisphere actually doing *anything* against the top tier decks? It seems that according to many "experts" Trini was too easy to play around. And yet there are many that suggest that Stax and other Workshop decks relied so heavily on the card to be competitive. So which is it then? Also, how do you justify the strength of an archetype based on a roughly 20% play (odds of winning the coin flip and getting a first turn Trini into play)?

If Trinisphere *was* in fact keeping top level decks honest, do we not have a problem with the *manner* in which Trinisphere did the job? (ie effectively win on turn 1?). If this was holding the balance in the environment, then I'm sorry, but that's the wrong way to do it.

It is annoying; to say the very least, that one of the key cards keeping an entire archetype viable in a field full of hate needed to be nixed because dumbasses playing fish aren’t having fun with their bad decks.

It needed to be nixed so dumbasses couldn't just plop it down turn 1 and claim a victory so easily and mindlessly.

I wouldn't say that Trinisphere was "So easy" to play around.  But, I think something that is often missing from anlysis of restriction of Trinisphere was whether Workshop decks NEEDED that Trinisphere stupid win play in order to win matches.

I think the answer is yes.  Trinisphere was needed for Workshops to win enough matches to be a good competitor in the T1 environment.

[Carthain]

I wouldn't say that Trinisphere was "So easy" to play around.  But, I think something that is often missing from anlysis of restriction of Trinisphere was whether Workshop decks NEEDED that Trinisphere stupid win play in order to win matches.

So, Long.deck NEEDED to be able to play 4 LED in order to win matches -- so should LED not have been restricted because a deck required it to win matches?

The fact that a deck or two requires the card to be competitive is not a good reason against restriction.  Madness would love to use 4 LED so it can randomly grab games.  Does that mean that we should unrestrict the LED so the deck can have a chance?

I think the answer is yes.  Trinisphere was needed for Workshops to win enough matches to be a good competitor in the T1 environment.

So why should workshop decks always be viable?  What makes workshop decks more important than, say, and elf deck?

[Smmenen]

I wouldn't say that Trinisphere was "So easy" to play around.  But, I think something that is often missing from anlysis of restriction of Trinisphere was whether Workshop decks NEEDED that Trinisphere stupid win play in order to win matches.

So, Long.deck NEEDED to be able to play 4 LED in order to win matches -- so should LED not have been restricted because a deck required it to win matches?

The fact that a deck or two requires the card to be competitive is not a good reason against restriction.  Madness would love to use 4 LED so it can randomly grab games.  Does that mean that we should unrestrict the LED so the deck can have a chance?

See, this is what happens when you restrict based upon subjective criteria.  Trinisphere didn't produce a dominant deck.  It was killed becuase it was unfun.  IMO, LED and Wish should not have been restricted.  I was the person who pulled for it and who saw that it happened, but it was a mistake.  I assumed that people would pick up the deck and play it like they had GAT.  I was wrong.  It didn't dominate.  It eventually might have, but I doubt it.

The only reason you even can say what you are saying now is because most people now agree that Long was insane.  At the time, people were badmouthing the deck, saying it was horrible, EVERYWHERE.  There was a widespread consensus on this board and elsehwere that the deck was not good.  Then when it got restricted, slowly, people's memories seem to have changed on the matter.

Likewise, I'm sure they will change on Trinisphere so that one year from now, people will look back and remember how INSANE 3Sphere decks were when nothing could be further from the truth.

I think the answer is yes.  Trinisphere was needed for Workshops to win enough matches to be a good competitor in the T1 environment.

So why should workshop decks always be viable?  What makes workshop decks more important than, say, and elf deck?

Elf should never be viable in this format.

But to answer your question: Variety at the TOP.  

What makes it important that Workshop be viable is that it is a powerful pillar to the format.  Restricting it makes the other pillars better and narrows the variety in the format.

I can already tell you that I do not think that Ritual decks will perform.

I predict that the next 6 months will be the era of Mana Drain dominance with some aggro-control and aggro decks.  Restricting Trinisphere will dramatically change the format, but in a way that makes it less diverse.

[Shock Wave]

I can already tell you that I do not think that Ritual decks will perform.

I predict that the next 6 months will be the era of Mana Drain dominance with some aggro-control and aggro decks.  Restricting Trinisphere will dramatically change the format, but in a way that makes it less diverse.

Really? You think Ritual decks will not dominate? That's interesting, considering that you predicted SX to be the deck that pushed Ritual into restriction. Actually, you predicted that several cards would need restriction after the last Waterbury. You're changing winds all the time Steve, and it is turning threads like this one into a quagmire of fruitless debate.

Do you want to hear my predictions, or what "I think" about Ritual? Perhaps you'd like to hear about what I think the face of T1 will look like next year, or the year after... ?

Honestly, I beg of you all to put a sock in this thread, and other threads of this nature. Trinisphere is gone and it isn't coming back. Opinions no longer matter on this issue, especially considering we're going back to the argument about "restriction criteria" and other muddy bogs we've already trudged through a million times.

[Smmenen]

I can already tell you that I do not think that Ritual decks will perform.

I predict that the next 6 months will be the era of Mana Drain dominance with some aggro-control and aggro decks.  Restricting Trinisphere will dramatically change the format, but in a way that makes it less diverse.

Really? You think Ritual decks will not dominate? That's interesting, considering that you predicted SX to be the deck that pushed Ritual into restriction. Actually, you predicted that several cards would need restriction after the last Waterbury. You're changing winds all the time Steve, and it is turning threads like this one into a quagmire of fruitless debate.

Do you want to hear my predictions, or what "I think" about Ritual? Perhaps you'd like to hear about what I think the face of T1 will look like next year, or the year after... ?

Honestly, I beg of you all to put a sock in this thread, and other threads of this nature. Trinisphere is gone and it isn't coming back. Opinions no longer matter on this issue, especially considering we're going back to the argument about "restriction criteria" and other muddy bogs we've already trudged through a million times.

Speaking of changing positions, you are quite vehement about letting people speak their mind when it came to discussions about whether Ritual or Trinisphere deserved restriction.  Your hilarious signiture bears this out.  But when it comes to criticizing those decisions, you want to close the thread up with equal force.  You can't have it both ways.  

I think Ritual will not dominate becuae Chalice and Arcane Lab are too strong and too prevalent.  

I have already posted this elsewhere, but I foresee the format becoming more and more Mana Drain combo oriented.  We are already seeing this with Salvagers, Oath and gifts decks and now variants combining all of these parts in a single deck.

[Carthain]

See, this is what happens when you restrict based upon subjective criteria.  Trinisphere didn't produce a dominant deck.  It was killed becuase it was unfun.

But does restriction require a dominant deck?  Everyone seems to say that is does, so that there is objective proof that it is bad for the format.  But you're forgetting that WotC has access to more stats than we seem to collect.  They also have access to the number of players who show up for tournaments.

They claimed that trinisphere was "unfun."  In other words, people were disliking the game (or at least the format) because of it's effect.  Some people stuck with it and tried to deal with it the best they can.  Others probably wrote and complained.  Some others I'm sure, decided to stop playing type 1.

There's more to having a healthy format than just a variety of decks that are viable.  A healthy format also includes people wanting to play the format.  When people specifically stop playing in a format because of a card -- then that card is unhealthy for the format.  It doesn't matter if it is a dominant deck or not.  If people dislike the prospect of playing against a card enough to not play in that format, then the format can't really be called healthy. (This is of course that they have access to whatever cards they desire.  It doesn't mean that the format is unhealthy because people can't get ahold of power and thus don't want to face other decks that have it.)

The same thing happened in type 2.  Ravager was rather strong, but there were other decks that were still viable and would top 8, or win tournaments.  But the format was so "unfun" that people stopped playing that format.  This is a symptom of a format that isn't healthy.  And that's what caused them to do something to attempt to fix the format.

The Vintage restriction of the trinisphere isn't that far from type 2.

So IMO there was objective data used to restrict trinisphere.  Something that people seem to want.  It's there, just not in the format you are used to seeing.

So why should workshop decks always be viable?  What makes workshop decks more important than, say, and elf deck?

Elf should never be viable in this format.

But to answer your question: Variety at the TOP.  

What makes it important that Workshop be viable is that it is a powerful pillar to the format.  Restricting it makes the other pillars better and narrows the variety in the format.

But the metagame shifts almost constantly in type 1, even without restrictions.  Certain decks dominate, then get hated out.  It rotates.  So over time, you will get your variety.

What about Waterbury.  A full half of the top 8 (and still half of the top 16 -- except the 1 missing decklist) were Control Slaver.  Where's your variety there?  Plus, if a specific pillar gets weaker, then people will start ignoring it -- so when it shows up, it is a bit stronger than normal because people are not expecting it.  Generally this is a form of what is called metagaming.

I predict that the next 6 months will be the era of Mana Drain dominance with some aggro-control and aggro decks.  Restricting Trinisphere will dramatically change the format, but in a way that makes it less diverse.

Can I hold you to that?  And in what area? Globally? just in north america? the US?

The local metagame around here will be affected by the restriction, but I don't see it being affected in the way that you predict.

[Smmenen]

See, this is what happens when you restrict based upon subjective criteria.  Trinisphere didn't produce a dominant deck.  It was killed becuase it was unfun.

But does restriction require a dominant deck?  Everyone seems to say that is does, so that there is objective proof that it is bad for the format.  But you're forgetting that WotC has access to more stats than we seem to collect.  They also have access to the number of players who show up for tournaments.

They claimed that trinisphere was "unfun."  In other words, people were disliking the game (or at least the format) because of it's effect.  Some people stuck with it and tried to deal with it the best they can.  Others probably wrote and complained.  Some others I'm sure, decided to stop playing type 1.

There's more to having a healthy format than just a variety of decks that are viable.  A healthy format also includes people wanting to play the format.  When people specifically stop playing in a format because of a card -- then that card is unhealthy for the format.  It doesn't matter if it is a dominant deck or not.  If people dislike the prospect of playing against a card enough to not play in that format, then the format can't really be called healthy. (This is of course that they have access to whatever cards they desire.  It doesn't mean that the format is unhealthy because people can't get ahold of power and thus don't want to face other decks that have it.)

The same thing happened in type 2.  Ravager was rather strong, but there were other decks that were still viable and would top 8, or win tournaments.  But the format was so "unfun" that people stopped playing that format.  This is a symptom of a format that isn't healthy.  And that's what caused them to do something to attempt to fix the format.

The Vintage restriction of the trinisphere isn't that far from type 2.

So IMO there was objective data used to restrict trinisphere.  Something that people seem to want.  It's there, just not in the format you are used to seeing.

All of this has been addressed in two threads in the Vintge Forum where I explicate my cascade argument and others:

http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21961

http://www.themanadrain.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22162

The point you are missing is that there can be a direct tension between the two ideals of fun and health.  When that tension comes to a head, where will you be?  

The argument that people didn't want to play the format is also total bunk.  Tournaments were reaching record numbers at the height of 3sphere.  And the DCI does not have more info than what Sylvan presents each month (see JP's interview with the head of the DCI).

[Carthain]

The argument that people didn't want to play the format is also total bunk.  Tournaments were reaching record numbers at the height of 3sphere.

Then how does Forsythe state as much about trinisphere in his article that explains the restriction of the trinisphere?

And the DCI does not have more info than what Sylvan presents each month (see JP's interview with the head of the DCI).

Doesn't Sylvan only use tournament information from tournaments with at least 50 people in it?

... and where would I find that interview?

[Smmenen]

The argument that people didn't want to play the format is also total bunk.  Tournaments were reaching record numbers at the height of 3sphere.

Then how does Forsythe state as much about trinisphere in his article that explains the restriction of the trinisphere?

Your confused.  

Forsythe was saying that 3Sphere was unfun and implied that much of his discussion about T2 applied to t1.  However, they lack data about T1 tournaments and the suggestion that the dip in tournaments that occurred in T2 was not supposed to cover t1.  The Waterbury had its largest attendance ever.  A SCG event in Syracuse got over 130 people despite a snow storm.  The events in nov in chicago were astounding.  Ask anyone who knows: t1 events had record numbers during that period.  

And the DCI does not have more info than what Sylvan presents each month (see JP's interview with the head of the DCI).

Doesn't Sylvan only use tournament information from tournaments with at least 50 people in it?

... and where would I find that interview?

Starcitygames.com

Stephen Menendian

[Shock Wave]

Speaking of changing positions, you are quite vehement about letting people speak their mind when it came to discussions about whether Ritual or Trinisphere deserved restriction.  Your hilarious signiture bears this out.  But when it comes to criticizing those decisions, you want to close the thread up with equal force.  You can't have it both ways.  

The difference is that people were trying to influence whether or not Trinisphere would be restricted. Restrictions were pending, thus at the time, the discussion was merited. At this point, it is not. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that anything currently needs restriction or that the game is in a state of disarray.

Steve, closing a thread where people are voicing their opinions on an issue that is of actual importance is unfair. There is absolute NOTHING in this thread that is worth debating, because Trinisphere is gone. Nothing you can say will bring it back, and nothing you can say will have any influence on how the metagame unfolds. Closing this thread will not prevent people from influencing a restriction or voicing an opinion on an important issue, it will only marginalize the traffic of useless conversation on these forums. These threads are the same shit, over and over again ...

It doesn't matter what you "predict" or "foresee". How about a little less predicting and a little more patience, that way you can base your arguments on evidence from the state of the game, of which you currently have none?

[Smmenen]

Speaking of changing positions, you are quite vehement about letting people speak their mind when it came to discussions about whether Ritual or Trinisphere deserved restriction.  Your hilarious signiture bears this out.  But when it comes to criticizing those decisions, you want to close the thread up with equal force.  You can't have it both ways.  

Steve, closing a thread where people are voicing their opinions on an issue that is of actual importance is unfair. There is absolute NOTHING in this thread that is worth debating, because Trinisphere is gone. Nothing you can say will bring it back, and nothing you can say will have any influence on how the metagame unfolds.

Just becuase you say it, doesn't make it so.  Certainly what is said here can do what you just said it couldn't.

[Shock Wave]

Just becuase you say it, doesn't make it so.  Certainly what is said here can do what you just said it couldn't.

  . Ok, thanks for clarifying the purpose of this thread.  

[Klep]

The point you are missing is that there can be a direct tension between the two ideals of fun and health.  When that tension comes to a head, where will you be?  

I'll be coming down on the side of fun, because ultimately, this is a game we're playing.  To me, the health of a game is directly tied to its fun level.  If the game isn't fun, why would anyone play it?  We certainly aren't going to make gobs of cash playing Type 1 any time soon.

[Vegeta2711]

The only complaint was that it was skillless. That was merely a complaint by people who weren't sufficiently skilled themselves.

Right. If you didn't like Trinisphere or think it was fair, you suck at magic. That's a GREAT arguement.

[Jacob Orlove]

Enough already.