[Article] SCG Daily 5/31

[Machinus]

What Vintage Does and Does Not Need

I agree with most of the points. This series looks to be really solid.

[shade88]

Excellent article.

Regarding a few points:

I definitely agree that vintage should always be played with 10+ proxy tournaments. Allowing 10+ proxies will be the only way for the format to truly grow. I also agree that eternal dci sanctioned tournaments should count for more than just bragging rights. Perhaps to do this, wizards needs to make an exception. Something along the lines of 5 proxies for dci sacntioned type 1 events that have to follow strict guidelines for proxies (something like scg requirements). 5 proxies lets many people play decks that are much more competitive than no proxies, but still give significant value to the power 9, mana drains, bazaars, etc.

I also agree that cards should never be made strictly for vintage. That really doesn't add much to the format-I understand it changes the format, just doesn't add to it. I personally feel it is much healthier for type 1 if a card is played because it is good enough to be played in vintage, not because wizards saw the need to print a card that has a strict purpose in type 1 (CoTV).

[dexter]

I just gotta say this,

i found it amusing that smennen actually wrote a few things like:

"We have no Mike Longs, no offensive or rude players, no outbursts or acts of violence."

"Vintage is the gentlemen's format."

The only time i had the pleasure of seeing Mr smennen actually play vintage is through a video from some event were he played SSX. And the behavior he showed on that video is behavior that would have gotten him DQ:d for unsportmanship conduct at any given PT.

Are these statements really necessary to make a point? I think not. I would ask that subsequent posters ignore these comments. Verbal warning. -Hyperion

With that said, i agree with some parts like proxy tourneys. But the part about not needing cards designed for vintage i think is wrong, cuz lets face it, vintage has been around since the birth of magic, and im sure that at least 99% of the broken cards has been found so what can be done with the current cardpool is limited, new cards for vintage might actually enable new decks but that might just be my opinion. Just look at what the mirrodin block did for vintage.

[Dozer]

But the part about not needing cards designed for vintage i think is wrong, cuz lets face it, vintage has been around since the birth of magic, and im sure that at least 99% of the broken cards has been found so what can be done with the current cardpool is limited, new cards for vintage might actually enable new decks but that might just be my opinion. Just look at what the mirrodin block did for vintage.

Smmenen does not say that Vintage should be entirely bereft of new cards. He said that R&D should not try to make cards specifically for Vintage. I agree, because they can't. What they work from are guesses and individual opinions of vocal players, not from the elaborate testing they do for other formats. They tend to overpower the cards and either have to restrict them immediately (example: Mind's Desire) or push them upon us so that we cannot pass it up (e.g. Chalice). Things like Engineered Explosives, Mindslaver, Titan, Possessed Portal, Cranial Extraction even Trinisphere and Crucible, and now Pithing Needle and Twincast (and the examples are plentiful, see Tempest & Urza Block) have been designed for their inclusion in other formats than Vintage, but they still worked out well. These cards are interesting enough to get tested and played, but they are not so obviously powerful that they scream "VINTAGE" from the top of their cardboard lungs.

Once in a while, R&D makes a broken set/block. Urza Block was one, Mirrodin another one, and these sets have a higher impact on Vintage than sets like Masques, Invasion or Kamigawa Block. But from those come a lot of goodies that see regular play. It's easy to see that there is no need for Vintage-designed cards – if you are willing to figure out the intricacies of cards that are not overtly broken but merely solid. And cards like that are naturally in every set.

As for the cardpool being "limited", I totally disagree. There are over 4000 individual cards in Magic. When you look at Dr. Sylvan's breakdown lists, you'll see that we use about 250-300 cards of all possible. The March breakdown had 271 individual cards! There are a lot of possibilities that we just have not found yet. And let's face it: who of us takes the time to read through the complete Oracle and test each hopeful candidate in 3-4 different decks against the gauntlet? Noone (yet), so we are almost entirely dependent on lucky finds.

Also, new decks emerge all the time. WTF, Cerebral Assassin, Meandeck Tendrils, Gifted, WU-Tang, even Oath, and remember long.dec? Some were inspired by new permutations of old cards, others were inspired by new cards. So what do you want specially made Vintage cards for? Also, I think that specially made Vintage cards would not break the traditional mold as easily as new cards do. "Vintage" incorporates a certain mindset of brokenness even in the mind of the designers, and I for one want new cards to be interesting and multi-faceted and explorable, not outright broken.

The only thing where I disagree with Steve is the assumption that Vintage needs no sanctioned tournaments. Even though the rating is largely irrelevant, it is a measure of competition that many people *do* care about. I care about my Vintage rating (which sadly has recently dropped a fair bit due to missing practice), if only to see have a comparison to others. And if tournaments like the French Vintage Open take hold (which was sanctioned, iirc), there might even be a ratings invite one day. Card supply is such a big problem that having the majority of tournaments sanctioned is bad, but I wouldn't want to miss it. Also, rating gives a (admittedly small) incentive to play even when the prize support is not good enough otherwise. When the first prize is 30 € store credit or a single dual, rating gives you something else to play for. And I have not lost the hope that one day the Eternal rating will do something... maybe if only for Legacy. But I would not complain it I got a Legacy invite to something on the basis of the rating I gained in Vintage.

I'm looking forward to the rest of the week!

Dozer

[empathogen]

But the part about not needing cards designed for vintage i think is wrong, cuz lets face it, vintage has been around since the birth of magic, and im sure that at least 99% of the broken cards has been found so what can be done with the current cardpool is limited, new cards for vintage might actually enable new decks but that might just be my opinion. Just look at what the mirrodin block did for vintage.

I don't think 99% of the vintage useful cards have been 'found', as you say, it all depends on the subtle shifts in metagame...The cards Steve mentioned like In The Eye Of Chaos and Old Man Of The Sea are good examples of how the right situation can give certain cards ascendancy over the metagame...There's plenty of old stupid cards in the early sets that just need the right circumstances to make them worth packing in a deck. Oftentimes i reckon people just forget about these sorts of silver bullets until they flip through an old folder...it's kind of hard to keep 36+ sets of cards up in your head, along with the creativity to apply them to a particular situation.  :shock:

[Mixing Mike]

Five Things Vintage Does Not Need:
....
5) A Focus on Teams

So why do so many people refuse to post their decks, and now even their opinions here on the focus point of the Vintage Format?  I call you all out, you know who you are.

[Jacob Orlove]

Five Things Vintage Does Not Need:
....
5) A Focus on Teams

So why do so many people refuse to post their decks, and now even their opinions here on the focus point of the Vintage Format?  I call you all out, you know who you are.

Because posting tech before an event hurts our chances of winning valuable prizes. Would I have still won that Ruby if I'd posted my WTF list before SCG Richmond? Possibly not, and that's a significant chunk of change. Note, though, that after the event I not only posted the decklist (which SCG did anyway), but also offered a lot "tech" and explanations to help people understand the deck. That's how it works--before an event, stuff is kept secret, because winning prizes is better than not winning prizes. After an event, the deck is usually made public (in the case of a meandeck build, usually with an article). The only way we'd ever go back to the old system is if tournaments went back to their old prize structures. Do you really want that?

[onelovemachine]

Are these statements really necessary to make a point? I think not. I would ask that subsequent posters ignore these comments. Verbal warning.

To be perfectly honest, if you had wanted these comments truly ignored and not at least read you would have deleted them entirely.  I can't help but agree with the sentiment and personally don't feel that it was entirely out of line.  Anyone who has played Steve couldn't help but notice his antics and "fifteen minute brainstorms."  Dexter is right, if he's going to write a small article including a point on how vintage is free of offensive or rude players and should remain that way then he should lead by example.  

5 proxies lets many people play decks that are much more competitive than no proxies, but still give significant value to the power 9, mana drains, bazaars, etc.
 

I think it is generally accepted that increasing the proxy number would not decrease the market value of type one cards.  By only allowing our 5 or ten proxies we discourage good people who would otherwise play the format and add to it from playing and expanding it.

 So why do so many people refuse to post their decks, and now even their opinions here on the focus point of the Vintage Format?  I call you all out, you know who you are.

Ok, so I'm not on one of the major teams, but the people I test with, my 'team,'  and I would probably never purposefully release a decklist even if we came up with something totally new and busted.  What's the point?  Meandeck might have the goal of expanding the format, I have the goal of winning power and I'm not gonna do that giving up savage tech.

[Mixing Mike]

No I don't want that at all.  I realize the two-fold-ness (is that a word?) of teams in any format.  I understand why they exist and why they run the way they do.

I had something here, but I decided to delete it.  Who am I to play the repairman with high demands?  Forget I said anything.  Sorry for the digression.

[Smmenen]

Are these statements really necessary to make a point? I think not. I would ask that subsequent posters ignore these comments. Verbal warning.

To be perfectly honest, if you had wanted these comments truly ignored and not at least read you would have deleted them entirely.  I can't help but agree with the sentiment and personally don't feel that it was entirely out of line.  Anyone who has played Steve couldn't help but notice his antics and "fifteen minute brainstorms."  Dexter is right, if he's going to write a small article including a point on how vintage is free of offensive or rude players and should remain that way then he should lead by example. 

These personal attacks are really inappropriate.

[onelovemachine]

Steve, I am not trying to personally attack anyone.  To be perfectly honest, the entire Michigan crew thinks you're a fun guy to play against and hang around with at tournaments.  You are a person who gets excited by magic.  When you brainstorm into a beta lotus,  Asian-signed will and whatever hot new foil you picked up that day you go nuts; there's no denying that.  You are exactly the kind of person you said type one needs, and you're right.  But as an opponent, sitting on the other side of you and your teammates while you discuss how good that tech card you sided in is...  while waiting for you to put two cards back and with the clock is winding down,  well..... I think you should be able to see how that could be construed as rude.  You as a player tend to get distracted by cards, teammates, other friends and formalities when there is a fifty minute round to play at hand.  If I offend, then I am sorry, but only half-heartedly.  You are a talented player and do very well for yourself, usually crushing your average swiss round opponent into the dust.  Sometimes your bubbling over with excitement can look a little less than classy.  For your opponent it feels like adding insult to injury.

[[supa_t(im)]]

Well, I saw that SX game as well, and I think anyone would get excited after baiting a FoW, then drawing into a yawgwin with a lot of mana on the board and a lot of goodies in the grave.

I have never played Smmenen, but a teamate was the 2nd Round U/R Fish player that you played at the last SCG Richmond.  And he said that Steve was one of the most polite people he played against all day.  I have no reason to doubt him.

I marginally disagree with the marketed to adults part.  Heck, even look at standard, most of its good players are at least over 12. The only reason age has anything to do with magic is because it requires a more analytical and mathematical mind.  I think maturity may be a better way of putting it, not age.  There are many good players that are in high school, and under the age of 18.  They shouldn't be discounted because of age if they can play the game well.  If they are young and can't play the game, then they shouldn't.

[shade88]

5 proxies lets many people play decks that are much more competitive than no proxies, but still give significant value to the power 9, mana drains, bazaars, etc.
 

I think it is generally accepted that increasing the proxy number would not decrease the market value of type one cards.  By only allowing our 5 or ten proxies we discourage good people who would otherwise play the format and add to it from playing and expanding it.

I think you might have misunderstood what I'm trying to say. I meant only allow 5 (maybe more??) proxies at dci sanctioned type1 events. By allowing this, it allows a compromise between wizards normal no proxies at sacntioned events and not having a completely proxied deck. Or something along the lines of letting cards over $200 in value be proxied. I guess the dci would probably go all or nothing-no proxies or 10+.

[Ferrismonk]

I've played against Steve a number of times (including way back when bdominia was the hot site).  He's pounded me flat almost every time, but I don't see how that or any of the other personal remarks are relevant to the content of his article.  He has made VERY good points concerning the future/needs  of Type 1.  I'd like to address a few of Steve's points:

1) More Proxy Tournaments and More Proxies per Tournament

I think it is important to notice that Steve is promoting unlimited proxies at the LOCAL level, not at the big tournaments; and I couldn't agree more.  Our weekly T1 tournament is unlimited proxies, it fosters innovation and a higher level of play.  You can try out a deck before you spend tons of money on individual cards that may or may not be crap.  And you get to try them out against the best decks.  The high profile tournaments can stay at a limited number of proxies, it forces people to actually buy/borrow the cards, while preventing somebody from just confusing everybody with 60 basic lands with scribbling on them. 

As a side note, I'm all for sanctioning limited proxy tournaments, the vintage rating is fun to look at.  Also, it would allow vintage players to accrue tournaments for the player rewards program.  The biggest problem with proxies could be alleviated by printing special blank proxy cards, maybe with a shiny border or something.  That way nobody would accidentally mistake an Ancestral Recall as an island while duressing for example.  My two cents.

5) Vintage Needs more Great Players and more Great Players willing to play Combo

While I agree with this, Combo is just to finicky to post well over and over.  The very nature of combo decks leads them to be fairly easily disrupted, IF the opponent plans for them.  I personally love my belcher incarnations, but I have to run at least 4 slots to something to protect (slow down) my combo in order to not be rolled over by any deck that runs Force of Will or Chalice of the Void (everybody).  The reason that control decks seem to dominate is they are much more able to do what they want to do than a combo deck.  Thus the only combo decks that seem to do well are the control/combo ones.

Those are the only sticky points I had.  But type one needs these sorts of articles by good type one players, this is where WOTC gets their reliable type one information from.

[everythingitouchdies]

Anyone who has played Steve couldn't help but notice his antics and "fifteen minute brainstorms."  

Listen Josh, I love you man, but the first time I ever heard the term "Fifteen minute brainstorm" they were not talking about Steve M.

I dont want to get into it too much, but this was a good article that proved to be pretty useful... to someone like me who is slowly introducing vintage to a whole branch of players it hasnt yet touched. It is for the meta that you play in that I am working hard, and when something of value comes out and someone trashes it, its generally not a good idea to go defending something that incurred a warning.

That said, I actually thought it was cute to just see it struck out, it made it far more entertaining than if it had been deleted.

EITD

[Razvan]

To be perfectly honest, if you had wanted these comments truly ignored and not at least read you would have deleted them entirely.  I can't help but agree with the sentiment and personally don't feel that it was entirely out of line.  Anyone who has played Steve couldn't help but notice his antics and "fifteen minute brainstorms."  Dexter is right, if he's going to write a small article including a point on how vintage is free of offensive or rude players and should remain that way then he should lead by example.

To be fair, I have played Smmennen, and he wasn't exactly stalling. He plays reasonably fast, and is a very polite opponent. Animated... yes. Moaning constantly for some strange, scary reason... yes. But I have been "warned" about playing him, and everytime I have played/seen him play, he has not lived up to the ill reputation. He's actually fun to play against.

[Methuselahn]

Unfortunately, I haven't played Smmenen, but I have played children.  Chidren are awesome.  We should be encouraging children to play Vintage as much as possible.

The point made of Vintage being a game for the older crowd is something that I just don't agree with. Can you really set an age requirement and realistically expect that to fly?

I would think that the endorsement of unlimited proxies would lure the 'pettiness and adolescent behavior often found at PTQs' to Vintage events.  Seeing as how these PTQ brats can now play fully powered decks, wouldn't they show up and ruin the 'gentleman's game' atmosphere?  Can you have your cake and eat it too when it comes to tournament quality?  I'm not sure there is a solution to this.

Besides the age thing, the rest of the piece looks proper.  Mostly though, I wanted to give a shout out to the children.

[Pechunato]

I agree with the majority of points, but I would like to stress a couple of things:


About "Five Things Type One Needs":

1) More Proxy Tournaments and More Proxies per Tournament

Plus, if Vintage becomes really popular, all the P9 (or any other old card, for instance) in the world would not be enough.
There is a very limited supply of those cards, so proxies would seem a fine solution.

2) Vintage Needs To be Marketed Toward Adults

I didn't understand this point. What do you mean? A minimum age threshold to play the format?


About "Five Things Vintage Does Not Need":

1) More Cards Designed for Vintage
[...]There is no need for WOTC to make cards specifically for Vintage when Vintage finds ways to abuse the cards that are made[...]

Although Wizards does not need to design Vintage-specific cards, it would be nice to have a couple of Vintage-playable cards in each set.

[[supa_t(im)]]

Although Wizards does not need to design Vintage-specific cards, it would be nice to have a couple of Vintage-playable cards in each set.

I think that his point was that there has been and will be Vintage playable cards in each set, without the need for R&D to design specific vintage cards.  I mean, look at what we get when they do.

We've found more cards to play with more frequently in the new sets than the cards designed specifically for vintage.

[Demonic Attorney]

These personal attacks are really inappropriate.

For once, Smmenen and I actually agree.  This is the sort of thing that should be kept to private messaging, or even better, face to face contact.  I don't see the point in making a public spectacle out of a personal problem.


About teams.  Speaking retrospectively, the advent of "secret team tech" strikes me as inevitable.  I started reading this site around the time when discussion of unplayed deck ideas was becoming quite rare, and post-hoc unveiling of decks developed in secret among teammates seemed to be getting more common with every publicized event.  I'm told that once upon a time, deck ideas were discussed openly far more frequently, with secrecy not being as much of an issue.  Without saying whether or not the change from then to now was a good or a bad thing, I think that whatever the case, it was inevitable.  Demonstrated most clearly the Tragedy of the Commons, the prospect of personal gain will outweigh most if not all other considerations present in community interaction.  Why share your new deck idea with 75% of the people you'll be competing against for a $300+ prize?  At best, they'll pay scant attention and be ready for you when you're playing them.  At worst, they'll take your idea and use it against you, possibly even improving it.  Anyone who is truly dedicated to maximizing their tournament performance will try to maximize the amount of information available to them, and minimize the amount of information available to their competitors.  An efficient mechanism for obtaining this advantage is of course, teams.  You get all the information present in the community, plus the newest breakthrough ideas your teammates get, while only sharing your insights with them.  The rise of team Vintage strikes me as inevitable, seen from this perspective.

[Smmenen]

Unfortunately, I haven't played Smmenen, but I have played children.  Chidren are awesome.  We should be encouraging children to play Vintage as much as possible.

The point made of Vintage being a game for the older crowd is something that I just don't agree with. Can you really set an age requirement and realistically expect that to fly?

I would think that the endorsement of unlimited proxies would lure the 'pettiness and adolescent behavior often found at PTQs' to Vintage events.  Seeing as how these PTQ brats can now play fully powered decks, wouldn't they show up and ruin the 'gentleman's game' atmosphere?  Can you have your cake and eat it too when it comes to tournament quality?  I'm not sure there is a solution to this.

Besides the age thing, the rest of the piece looks proper.  Mostly though, I wanted to give a shout out to the children.

No where in my article did I talk about an "age" requirement nor did I say that kids shouldn't play Type One. 

I'll quote someone in the SCG forums:

Actually if you read the artical he never says magic should be marketed strictly to adults. What he says is more money should be spent on bringing more adults to the vintage scene. He never excludes anyone he just says hed like to see more older players. To me that just means more players.

However, Smmenen is in no way attempting to tell your son to stay away from Vintage, nor is he dictating to you as a father. He's stating a preference for a more mature crowd, and has repeatedly explained that this reflects a desire for an overall shift in marketing from Wizards.

@ Demonic Attorney - I'm always a little astonished to read people say stuff like "for once I agree with you" and the like becuase I'm sure that I have said many, many things you agree with me on - and not just factual matters but assertions like: Gifts is a good deck, or, Type One is fun. 

At your point about Teams.  I'm not sure whether you were speaking in direct response to my article or whether you were just commenting abstractly on the topic, but what you discuss is not exactly what I was talking about. 

Here is what I said in the article:

Vintage does not need:
5) A Focus on Teams
I once thought that competition between teams would be the driving force in Vintage. At the time, there was really only one team - Team Paragons. I created a secret team at the same time with intent of revealing it so as to compete with the Paragons. I never had the guts to do it. The paragons had a meltdown and the Paragons split into my team and Team Short Bus. Team Reflection has made inroads as another big Vintage team as had Team Hadley. These teams are good for pooling knowledge, but they aren't really necessary to success. It's the truly motivated players that perform well. Two ingredients determine performance: the first is skill and the second is understanding of the format. The latter is primarily a result of your passion with the format. Teams are the byproduct of passionate players, not the cause.

It should be clear that in no way am I disparaging the use of teams.  In fact, I beleive myself to be a primary force behind the development of serious teams in this format (becuase I created a secret group that split the paragons) and really pushed the team meandeck thing everywhere since 2003.  I'm making a different point.  I thought that teams would be a more powerful brew for creativity and competition in this format, and thus far, that has not proven correct.  They have their role - but they haven't met the expectations I had for them.  I expected more teams to sprout up and more people to get organized.  Individuals are still more important than ever. 

[[supa_t(im)]]

I think people are up in arms about the marketing to the older crowd because your message is a little unclear.  You seem to be saying that you think vintage is amlost exclusively for adults.  When in fact, it now seems like you are saying that vintage should be marketed to a more mature crowd, not necessarily older.

And, I guess I'm still not clear on the team thing. Are you saying teams are good, but they are really only a tool for an individual to be successful?  Please explain what exactly you mean by

I thought that teams would be a more powerful brew for creativity and competition in this format, and thus far, that has not proven correct.  They have their role - but they haven't met the expectations I had for them.  I expected more teams to sprout up and more people to get organized.  Individuals are still more important than ever. 

I'm thinking you are saying that you thought teams would bring out more tech, and more decklists.  However, since teams have come out with more tech/decks, and they still haven't met your expectations, I assume I'm thinking wrong.

[Klep]

I thought that teams would be a more powerful brew for creativity and competition in this format, and thus far, that has not proven correct.  They have their role - but they haven't met the expectations I had for them.  I expected more teams to sprout up and more people to get organized.  Individuals are still more important than ever. 

I'm thinking you are saying that you thought teams would bring out more tech, and more decklists.  However, since teams have come out with more tech/decks, and they still haven't met your expectations, I assume I'm thinking wrong.

What he's saying is that he thought the existence of a couple of strong teams competing against each other would spark the creation of more and more teams, ultimately leading to a situation like what you have on the pro tour where most players are on a team of some sort that actually does more than just playtest against each other.  This wouldn't necessarily lead to more tech or decks, but would force the decks that existed to become better and better as teams jockeyed for prizes in tournaments.  What has instead happened, I believe Steve is saying, is that a small number of teams formed that don't really do much of this, and Vintage is consequently still dominated by individual personalities, doing their own work or just copying the work of what teams there are.  Despite this, the format has become a lot more cohesive, stronger, and popular, leading Steve to come to the conclusion that a focus on teams is not really needed.

EDIT: Incidentally, what I think Vintage needs is to change the perception that Vintage is a casual format.  In other formats you have a clear distinction between the people who play that format competetively and those who play it casually.  Hell, Extended doesn't even really have a casual element.  Many of us here on TMD are blinded to this as we discuss Type 1 largely within our peer group of people who take the format seriously, but the vast majority of Magic players equate Type 1 with casual.  They honestly don't perceive a difference.  What I think needs to happen is a shift in perception such that people realize that there are two kinds of Vintage players just like there are two kinds of Type 2 players.  It's only at that point that we'll be able to get around the arbitrary blocks that do things like, for example, keep cards like Yawgmoth's Will unbanned.  Few people, I think, would question the idea that banning Will would be good for the format, but the idea that Type 1 is a sort of playpen for people who want to enjoy their old cards is keeping R&D from taking the action that should be taken.

[orgcandman]

EDIT: Incidentally, what I think Vintage needs is to change the perception that Vintage is a casual format.  In other formats you have a clear distinction between the people who play that format competetively and those who play it casually.  Hell, Extended doesn't even really have a casual element.  Many of us here on TMD are blinded to this as we discuss Type 1 largely within our peer group of people who take the format seriously, but the vast majority of Magic players equate Type 1 with casual.  They honestly don't perceive a difference.  What I think needs to happen is a shift in perception such that people realize that there are two kinds of Vintage players just like there are two kinds of Type 2 players.  It's only at that point that we'll be able to get around the arbitrary blocks that do things like, for example, keep cards like Yawgmoth's Will unbanned.  Few people, I think, would question the idea that banning Will would be good for the format, but the idea that Type 1 is a sort of playpen for people who want to enjoy their old cards is keeping R&D from taking the action that should be taken.

I'd have to say that I disagree with this. The format is great as-is. This IS the format of mistaken cards. They __SHOULD__ be here to interact with each other. I'm all in favor of keeping the format such that it is seen as the playpen for people who want to enjoy the old cards. That view is exclusive of seeing the format as casual/competetive. Look at type 2 for the converse, it's the playpen for people who want to enjoy the newest cards. There's no difference.

[Sean Ryan]

On the topic of Vintage as a completive format in the vein of Extended or Standard:

I understand where Smmennen & Klep are coming from.  They probably play T1 as competitively as many others play the pro-tour and they want a format that can accommodate this.  However, the number of players who want the format to remain completive-casual vastly outnumbers the Kleps and Smmenens.

 From the standpoint of R&D/DCI the purpose of Vintage is to allow every card ever made to be played and interact.  If Vintage was a pro tour format would Will be banned, most definitely.  However, that is not the purpose for Vintage from neither the perspective of Wizards or the  masses who play.  I live in Seattle and I have posted this same question to Buhler and other higher ups who have told me the exact same thing.  As long as the current guard is in power no card will be banned in Vintage based upon brokenness.

Sean

P.S.  Buhler has been checking up on Vintage lately, he won a local Power tourney with Control SLaver not to long ago.

[xrobx]

Some quality highlights of this thread 

"...vintage has been around since the birth of magic..." - dexter

This one was great, who'd of known that vintage used all the cards in magic, and was around since...well, since the "birth" of magic.

Another favorite was:

You as a player tend to get distracted by cards,[/size] teammates, other friends and formalities when there is a fifty minute round to play at hand. -onelovemachir

What kind of cards are destracting him exactly...?  Poker cards? Pokemon cards..?  Certainly not magic cards?


I nice way to bring you upto pace on this thread is another great point...

Unfortunately, I haven't played Smmenen, but I have played children.  Chidren are awesome.-methuselahn

We do children right, MtG!!

[jazzykat]

  Without saying whether or not the change from then to now was a good or a bad thing, I think that whatever the case, it was inevitable.  Demonstrated most clearly the Tragedy of the Commons, the prospect of personal gain will outweigh most if not all other considerations present in community interaction.  Why share your new deck idea with 75% of the people you'll be competing against for a $300+ prize?  At best, they'll pay scant attention and be ready for you when you're playing them.  At worst, they'll take your idea and use it against you, possibly even improving it.  Anyone who is truly dedicated to maximizing their tournament performance will try to maximize the amount of information available to them, and minimize the amount of information available to their competitors.  An efficient mechanism for obtaining this advantage is of course, teams.  You get all the information present in the community, plus the newest breakthrough ideas your teammates get, while only sharing your insights with them.  The rise of team Vintage strikes me as inevitable, seen from this perspective.

Agreed. There are also a few other side effects of growing secrecy:

1.  Public domain knowledge becomes less useful because there is less cutting edge stuff made public.

2. Paying for information becomes more attractive if for the sole reason that not everyone has access to the information thus giving you a slight information advantage. However, even the information you are paying for may not be the "newest and most savage" tech in existence but what the author and editor choose to release to the public.

I personally liked the drain more when ideas flowed more freely and there was a true open source communal experience where deck ideas and play theories were free to all, and were developed more quickly and may I dare say perhaps even more optimally since so many minds were working on things at once. On the other hand with any free system there is always a free rider problem but I don't feel that free riders do as well as the developers (who have an intrinsic sense of the deck) in tournaments.

So my last thought about Type 1  is that trying to guess the metagame, developing monster tech/decks are all OK, but the true key to victory has remained the same: know your deck inside and out (through a great deal of practicing) and keep having FUN.

[TracerBullet]

3) More Players Who Are Passionate About Vintage
This is the silver bullet. Passion and love of the format drives everything that Vintage really needs. It drives testing, innovation, performance - everything. Individuals drive this format, not teams and not communities. A person who loves the format enough can make a huge impact. I know from my own experience.

This was the one major thing I disagreed with in your article, Steve.  As you'll recall, we had a quite long conversation a few weeks ago about the role of people in the community, and of the community in the format.  It seems as though part in parcel to your not wanting to play against children is the implicit respect that you want to have for your opponent- That you wouldn't want to play against somebody that you wouldn't want to be your friend.  While I agree with this sentiment, I think I would amend your statement- Individuals drive the community, which in turn drives the format.  That sense of community is absolultely essential for our format because it has been so long outside the mainstream of Magic as a whole that the community is where people look for answers, not the DCI or PT tech.  I don't come to GenCon from California to compete against random guys I've never heard of or spoken to in my life; I come to compete against you, and Rich, and Virginia, and go to Hooters with you, and Rich, and Virginia.

All in all, I thought it was a good article.

[dexter]

@xrobx

thx for quoting a chosen part, next try though i just want you to test to quote the whole sentence....

@smennen

at the part about personal attacks, i just feel like if you should write an article aboust something you should be a good example, and follow the example, not contradict yourself.

[Smmenen]

@xrobx

thx for quoting a chosen part, next try though i just want you to test to quote the whole sentence....

@smennen

at the part about personal attacks, i just feel like if you should write an article aboust something you should be a good example, and follow the example, not contradict yourself.

I did not contradict myself by words or by actions.