The format we have worked so hard to build

[Bulls on Parade]

Vintage has become completely stagnant. Discussion, and therefore innovation, typically decline for a few months around this time of year, so this may not have come as much of a surprise to anybody. However, it's been on the decline for the better part of a year. Prices are falling much lower than their usual seasonal swings, and it's been months since we developed a viable new deck. The problem, as I see it, is that we are all waiting for something, but we don't know exactly what- an impetus to test new ideas. Maybe it's a wave of unrestrictions, perhaps even a banning or two. Maybe we're waiting for Waterbury to roll by in hopes that someone's been working on an archetype that's been kept a secret. If there's ever been a time that we needed to stop waiting and do something, this is it.

We've written countless articles, tested myriad new cards and decks, and published tournament results for years. What did this get us? SCG's tournament support. A Vintage "World Championships" event. Waterbury. Seperation of the Type 1/ 1.5 Banned and Restricted List. Portal made legal. We are completely capable of making this format what we want. Have we just stopped wanting this badly enough to work for it? We can't just let the teams do all of the work for us. We need our steady discussion and community flow of ideas back. Maybe too many players have quit the Magic scene. Maybe everyone who was once interested enough to work for support for our format is now too busy. Or maybe we are all just waiting on everyone else.

I haven't played in years, but I still care about the format. I would think it would be tough for anyone who's been around the community since BD not to. I find it impossible to believe that the players who consistently attended SCG and Waterbury events don't care at least as much as I do. I'm not accusing anybody of being too lazy to come up with something new, I understand a new deck doesn't exactly dream itself up. I do, however, think that we have all been guilty at one point or another of saying to ourselves "I'll just wait and see what meandeck takes to the next event." If we stay in this mentality, eventually we won't have the tournament support that we do now, and we won't have anything to wait for. I'm not saying the sky is falling, but I do suspect that with the sharp decline in attendance to SCG events, they might be reconsidering their tournament support. I know I would be were I in their shoes.

Or maybe I'm just too out of the loop. To me, it seems like we are in jeopardy of losing something that's been worked so hard for, and no one wants to see that happen. I'm sure there will be posts that claim the format is doing perfectly fine and the amount of support we have is just great. Before you post that, don't you think that we are on the verge of losing that support? Do we really need numbers from MORE tournaments to deduce that tournament organizers are probably reconsidering supporting Vintage, especially when they could be holding Legacy events and almost definitely raking in more tournament entry fees?

My point is, I just want to know what we're all waiting for. Are we really out of ideas? I don't think so.

[Machinus]

Many of the good players and deckbuilders now exist in their own smaller communities. A lot of the fun of talking about building and playing decks (on TMD) has been eliminated by competition. Teams and articles have taken much of the insight and interesting discussion away from the public forum, and into more rewarding areas - i.e, winning power, selling articles, etc.

We wanted metagame coherence, popularity, and innovation. You can't have a casual friendly atmosphere and all those things too.

[jpmeyer]

I think the problem is that we had the good fortune of having Mirrodin block come out at the same time that the format was taking off.  Because of this, people associate growth and innovation with "the good old days" because everything fell into place so well there.

[dicemanx]

I think its simple. The drive towards "metagame coherence" (part of which involves publishing/discussing/optimizing archetypes) is at odds with innovation in this format, because this format only undergoes changes when new sets come out or when the B/R list is altered in a relevant way. That is, if you succeed in establishing and perfecting archetypes, the need to innovate for the average T1 player diminishes. The *desire* to innovate remains among the few, but the problem is that the lazy masses will contentedly resort to using the established decks, which makes it increasingly more difficult for new ideas to succeed.  If you tell the masses that archetypes A, B and C are top tier in the format, that is exactly what the majority will end up playing. If you meticulously analyze the reasons behind the card choices and how to play the deck optimally, then the majority of the players will end up playing the archetypes *better*.

This is the ultimate product of "metagame coherence" and finding the "absolute truth" in T1 ladies and gentlemen. "Innovation" as you define it is on the severe decline. We must reap what we have sowed. However, "innovation" takes on NEW guises at this stage, which doesn't make the game any less exciting in my opinion. Instead of coming up with entirely new archetypes or discovering new/viable draw engines/kill conditions/disruption etc, the focus has shifted to hybridization strategies, creating variants suited for specific metagames, or pursuing high risk high reward strategies - pushing surprise value over predictable "optimal" configurations.


If you want to return to the days of "innovation", the only way I see this happening is by radically altering the B/R list. For instance, you can give Workshop, Drain, and/or Ritual the hammer. This would *not* be done for the sake of format balance of course - the idea here is to "shake things up"; to reset everything back at zero and force everyone to rely on their own deckbuilding prowess once again. I personally wouldn't push for this at this stage because I still very much enjoy the format, but I could see this as something that could be done if future sets fail to breathe new life into T1.

[SpencerForHire]

You also may find that you are thinking about this in relativity.  Alot of the big innovation was during a specific block, mirrodin.  That block caused everything to sort of shift around and the competition got more fierce.  Now that you are back down to regular innovation it seems like nothing because there was such a large growth of it during a specific time.  I could be wrong though.

[Komatteru]

I think regionalism plays a big part in making things appear to be on the decline.  Furthermore, news of what's going on everywhere doesn't always get out as it should.  For example, how many of you know what goes in Michigan?  You've seen the threads here, but no one seems to post results from the events.  I know that when I see regular tournaments and never see any published results, I doubt either whether the tournament actually happened (did enough people show up to give away a Mox?) or whether the metagame was "legitimate" (i.e., not 5 powered players and 20 people with Legacy decks).  People might be shocked to discover that Michigan has one of the most diverse and stongest metagames in the country.  Regional metagames are very distinct, and what gets played in the Midwest often gets laughed at in the Northeast (and vice versa, let me tell you).  Geographic restrictions often make it so that people don't travel out of their region, and the strength of regional metagames often makes it unnecessary.  For instance, Vroman, GWS, ICBM, and I have never been to an SCG event that hasn't been at Chicago.  For most people in the NE, there's no reason to venture out, as all the Magic they need is contained within 300 miles of home.  Why travel 1000 miles for a game?  So what you get is people not appearing to the community as a whole, and you have great new ideas staying where they were originated.  For instance, it was only recent that someone not on GWS dared to take GWS Oath to an event, and even Uba Stax shows up a lot less often in places outside the Midwest than it should, given its track record.  Regional metagames aren't so much destroying the format as making it pocketized.  I'm not sure that's really a good thing either.

Lack of people writing is also a problem too.  I'll admit that I just don't like writing formal articles, and I just don't want to put the time into it.  I'm not pressuring people to write, since I don't even want to do it myself, but the lack of regular articles written by people not named Stephen Menendian (even Josh Silvestri has been writing about the other formats as of late) is a bit of a problem for getting the ideas flowing.  Even miniprimers (like the ones recently posted about GWS Oath and Uba Stax) are a step in the right direction, as are good tournament reports -- ones with some analysis of in-game decisions, and not just what happened.  Those things don't take too much effort to write up, and if more people could do that, it would be great for getting the word out.

[dicemanx]

Furthermore, news of what's going on everywhere doesn't always get out as it should.

Lack of people writing is also a problem too.

You don't think making information so freely available is the cause of all the problems? People are lazy by nature, and they will readily be led by the hand. Like I said, if you tell them what to play and how to play it, thats exactly what they will do. Isn't that part of the problem?

I feel that the less we share and the fewer lists that are published, the better it will be for the format and more rewarding to the more skillful players. This isn't anything new - we've been saying this for a while now, and we were even *warning* people that divulging of secrets and optimizing decks publically could lead to disaster. I also think that while people bemoan the lack of innovation in the format, those that actually put up the top 8's are the ones innovating. Perhaps not on the scale that we might desire if we glance at formats like T2 or extended, but the innovation *is* there.

I also feel that people are way to quick to parrot what Smmenen says. This is in no way a knock against him, but he has grown to mammoth proportions as far as influencing this format, and when he claimed not too long ago that T1 was stagnating it was like a huge fucking echo in here. I frankly disagree completely with his assessment of the state of the format - personally my enjoyment of T1 has not diminished one iota in the past 2 years, but perhaps that has something to do with the fact that I come from a region that isn't too quick to reveal all of our secrets and hard work. Coincidence?

I also have next to no respect or time for people who claim a lack of innovation and WAIT for others to come up with the next hottest thing so that they can ape it, all the while criticizing players for playing successful archetypes like UbaStax/Gifts/Oath (which they will typically claim are too easy to pilot too boot). This isn't a knock against anyone in this thread - its just something that detracts from the desire to share even more. 

[Kasuras]

I do feel that this is an important issue, and I'm surprised that this is the first discussion on it at the site: other discussions were merely off-topic in other threads and in #tmd while it seems that a lot of people feel this way.

Because we are talking about the situation we currently have, it's inevitable to not discuss the previous situation. I think that this previous situation was at the time that keeper was still the deck to beat. Not 4cc, mind you: that's from the new era. But the time that "people still sucked", as I've heard some people name it; the era that bad decks could still win tourments just because they were powered.

I think that the main difference between our current situation and the one before is that people have realized that killing the opponent before they kill you is the best answer to their threats: "sure, go ahead; play all the negators you want. I'll be swinging with my Akroma/DSC/Tendrils now if you don't mind". As where it previously was: "block your negator with Morphling and pump it after damage on stack/StP it/Balance the board/Fire it". And, of course, because of this the format has gotten faster. So: the format has gotten faster. What can we change about this? Well, nothing really: restricting workshop, ritual and drain will surely get us a new format but not one where this mentality has changed. Killing before you get killed is still a viable strategy, no matter what you restrict: just take a look at highlander where combo rules supreme.

And because you want to win as fast as possible, you just don't have that much room anymore for cards that won't lose you the game.. since you want to win the game! This decreases your choices of decks and cards a lot. Please don't give stax as an argument, because not losing there equals winning in the long term.


Second, we have pretty much established what the archetypes are and which cards are necessary for it: prison, combo, aggro-control and control. Of course, not pure control; combo-controll, but that's self-explanatory. Take a look at the basis for control:

25 mana sources
8 counters
15 draw
12 other

Sure, you can switch the Island for a Sea, the Drain for a Leak and play some bizarre new hate card against suicide: but the main point is still that the basis for all control decks is the same. I could also mention that there are about 5 playable tutors and 5 different viable draw engines and that there are usually 3 to 5 random metagame hate cards: but I think that this is sufficiently convincing.

A basis for aggro:

20 land
20 hate/draw
20 creatures

Too easily said? Just look at the successful aggro decks nowadays.

Mind if I don't do the same for prison and combo, I think that everyone sees what I mean by now with this statement: there are 4 archetypes with decks that all look alike very much. Innovation is limited to a few cards in a certain deck, or perhaps even a new deck that runs a new draw engine and a new kill mechanism.. but that's it.

I do think that these 2 factors are the reasons why we have a lack of innovation, it's just that there are more people than before who see it.

[BigMac]

I think to many people dismiss ideas before they even have tried it. Those are the same people that talk about tier decks and play such a deck untill the end of times. Those are the same people that do not ever try something different, let alone think outside the box.

Time may be an issue. Netdecking may be an issue. Performance may be an issue. But people stay inside the box out of fear to fail or something.

[Vegeta2711]

I don't think Vintage is really all that stagnant. We have a year- round format and the highest power level. It's -hard- to make decks that aren't just inferior to the already existing decks.  People are too quick to whine and complain about how boring everything is when a new viable deck isn't created every month or two. The only reason we see so much innovation in a format like Extended is because of how compressed the season is and how much information we have available to us. As I've said before, one month worth of Extended results is the equivalent to one year of Vintage tourneys.

Try to think of how much innovation actually happens in T2 most of the year and you'll see Vintage really has a fine amount. As JP and others have stated, people have been spoiled by these sudden flashes of advancement where the format grows by leaps and bounds. This isn't a likely scenario in the future.

Oh and last thing. Everyone on the SCG forums suck ass, because all they do is complain about the lack of Vintage material while not writing. Don't copy their example. At least JD posts long intellgent posts to make up for articles. If you don't want to write articles that's fine, but you can at least make the effort to be good posters then (And I know it's hard. That's the reason I started writing articles).

As for myself, I may write about Vintage again now that Extended season is over, but it's hard to really want too anymore.

[LotusHead]

I don't think Vintage is really all that stagnant. We have a year- round format and the highest power level. It's -hard- to make decks that aren't just inferior to the already existing decks.  People are too quick to whine and complain about how boring everything is when a new viable deck isn't created every month or two.

I agree that Vintage isn't stagnant.  Gifts and UbaStax evolve weekly (all 31 flavors of each) and decks like Zombie Infestation (or other Life of the Loam type decks) and Savannah Lions.dec keep me smiling.  They have game against Stax/Combo/Control, etc. 

Drains don't dominate.  Shops don't dominate.  Bazaars don't Dominate. Null Rods don't dominate.  Oaths don't dominate.

ShopBazaarNullRod decks, however, are actually pretty scary.

I see no problem. 

[Limbo]

Drains don't dominate.  Shops don't dominate.  Bazaars don't Dominate. Null Rods don't dominate.  Oaths don't dominate.

This is actually the cause for the "lack of innovation" I think. Nothing is dominating at the moment, so everybody can play whatever deck they wish to play and perform well with it, if they know what they are doing. As soon as a deck becomes Long.dec or GAT crazy, then new development will start to crush the best deck of the format. Until then, everybody plays just whatever the hell they want to play, which is a good thing I might add.

[rvs]

I think to many people dismiss ideas before they even have tried it. Those are the same people that talk about tier decks and play such a deck untill the end of times. Those are the same people that do not ever try something different, let alone think outside the box.

Oh please... you have been playing TPS forever.

[BigMac]

Quote from: BigMac on January 04, 2006, 04:20:33 PM
I think to many people dismiss ideas before they even have tried it. Those are the same people that talk about tier decks and play such a deck untill the end of times. Those are the same people that do not ever try something different, let alone think outside the box.

Oh please... you have been playing TPS forever.

Yep that is true, i never said i was any different. However i still try to play other decks as well. Not when i want to win, but more often than some other players. On the other hand i am still trying to prove TPS is a strong deck and still some people are not convinced of this. Next to that, i just like the deck and it has changed a lot since the first time i played it.
Perhaps you are just upset you always lose against it (wink wink)

[CF]

For some reason I can't find the log where I discussed this on #themanadrain with Zherbus - that's a shame cause we summed up most of the problems... anyhow:

I think inflated egos should take some of the blame. "Back in the day" where innovation started to surge, I'm pretty sure we can all agree most of it came directly from or was helped along by the europeans, specifically the Germans (Dülmen). GAT, TNT completely, development of stax and 4cc etc etc. Despite having frequent big tournaments there, there was always innovation going on.

Then came the SCG and other big tournies in the US and suddenly the American side went hyper-serious with teams and even more damaging; the winners declaring themselves omniscient and suddenly boasting a grossly arrogant attitude. Or worse: If they shared something it was already "old" tech in their eyes AND THEY MADE SCG CHARGE FOR IT! What the hell. Premium. Blah!  Anyhow... The sharing of tech between Europe and the US quickly stopped in the online community, because one side did nothing but keep their secrets tight and claim to know best. Many of the innovative Europeans (except the ones with a history here) seemingly dropped out of the community and just kept playing their tournaments and discussing amongst themselves. Sure, there's a fair bit of money on the line at the SCG events, but is it really THAT serious that one has to be a total asshole? If some of the "serious t1 players" spent as much time on another format they could win far greater prizes I'm sure. Get a grip. It's a game!

I too lost all interest in discussing tech in such an overly serious and.. unpleasant environment. I'm pretty sure the Germans and (to some extent) the Italians still come up with innovative things - they still have plenty of tournaments. There are things left to discover too! I actually know of an idea/deck or two so keep on thinking ;o)

--
Chris

[Moxlotus]

Then came the SCG and other big tournies in the US and suddenly the American side went hyper-serious with teams and even more damaging; the winners declaring themselves omniscient and suddenly boasting a grossly arrogant attitude. Or worse: If they shared something it was already "old" tech in their eyes AND THEY MADE SCG CHARGE FOR IT! What the hell. Premium. Blah!  Anyhow... The sharing of tech between Europe and the US quickly stopped in the online community, because one side did nothing but keep their secrets tight and claim to know bes

When did anyone sit there and boast arrogantly and dismiss everything else?  I don't know of anybody who did nothing but keep their secrets tight and claim to know whats best.  Could you give any example?  Also, so what they wrote an article on "old tech" for SCG.  If it wasn't "old tech" then it hasn't been proven in tournament play and could be complete crap?  Also-why would someone give out their tech they've worked so hard on before they go to a tournament? 

[Komatteru]

Also-why would someone give out their tech they've worked so hard on before they go to a tournament?

Agreed.  I don't understand why people think I'm so secretive before an event, or rather, why they're surprised I prefer not to disclose all my developments.  All I want is to use the tech I've developed before anyone else has.  I don't think its an unreasonable expectation really.  After I've had a chance to win something with it first, I'll be more than happy to share.

Some people like Vroman and Brian Demars have shared their lists before events and then taken them and beat the hell out of people.  The sharing was a noble thing to do, and makes the victory all the more impressive, but people should not expect anyone to actually do that.  Praise is due to those who share tech before events, but people should not look down on those who don't choose to give out info before they've had a chance to win something first.

[Machinus]

Also-why would someone give out their tech they've worked so hard on before they go to a tournament?

Agreed.  I don't understand why people think I'm so secretive before an event, or rather, why they're surprised I prefer not to disclose all my developments.  All I want is to use the tech I've developed before anyone else has.  I don't think its an unreasonable expectation really.  After I've had a chance to win something with it first, I'll be more than happy to share.

Some people like Vroman and Brian Demars have shared their lists before events and then taken them and beat the hell out of people.  The sharing was a noble thing to do, and makes the victory all the more impressive, but people should not expect anyone to actually do that.  Praise is due to those who share tech before events, but people should not look down on those who don't choose to give out info before they've had a chance to win something first.

I think the point is that the dominant mindset in Vintage is now secrecy and private development. Previously, TMD was a community-oriented site, and the interactions between players were much different. The site was completely different. I can see how a lot of people, especially Europeans, dislike this development, and are unhappy about the changes that have occured here. Even if you don't withhold your decklists and you do write articles or primers after whatever tournament, you are still depriving the community of one of the main reasons why TMD ever grew so popular in the first place - a legitimate development process. I want to win power as much as anyone else, and I don't think I should give my opponents an advantage by showing them my deck beforehand. However, that doesn't mean I'm incapable of understanding the position of those Vintage players who maybe aren't on teams, or perhaps even don't care as much about winning power as they do having fun and being a part of a friendly and intelligent community.

I personally think it is kind of silly for Vintage players to pretend to be so competitive and focused on the prizes they can win, when if you just took a part time job, or even worked hard in an official format, you could make way more money and buy ten times as many moxes. TMD has thrived and is so valued because of the community; removing the legitimate "Vintage" interaction has made it difficult for the online community to survive.

[dandan]

The 'problem' is that Vintage has matured as a format. In the past 'bad' decks in the hands of good players occasionally won tournaments. Then people started developing the hell out of decks and Slaver/Gifts/Stax got very good at what they do. The benchmark for 'good' has changed from something that develops an advantage to just winning. Why play Control and win in 4 turns after you cast Morphling when you can play ControlCombo and just win (OK often SwingWalkSwing win)? Why play a cute 3 card combo when you can play a 1 card combo that combos with playing a combo (playing fast mana and draw/search)? Very often (I'd say the majority of the time) when someone posts a newdeck idea, it is shot down with  'But isn't that similar to deck X but deck X is superior' - AND THEY ARE RIGHT. This is not lack of innovation, merely the fact that unless the new idea does something broken, it isn't good enough.

In addition, Champions block was far far less Vintage orientated than Mirrodin. Ravnica looks like it may help out as Gold cards and possibly Guild cards can be given higher power than their monocolour ilk and aggro decks are getting the odd creature to help the cause and a 1cc Artifact killer is a good addition to hate. Having said that, the dominant decks can also utilise new cards so we are likely to see evolution rather than revolution unlesss another Mirrodin comes along.

[CF]

I personally think it is kind of silly for Vintage players to pretend to be so competitive and focused on the prizes they can win, when if you just took a part time job, or even worked hard in an official format, you could make way more money and buy ten times as many moxes. TMD has thrived and is so valued because of the community; removing the legitimate "Vintage" interaction has made it difficult for the online community to survive.

Precisely.

--
Chris

[Smmenen]

I don't think that's fair.

Who ever said that winning prizes was about the money?  It's about the pride.  I could give a shit about the money. 

[kirdape3]

Who cares about pride?  I've played far more Premiere level formats at a higher level than I have Vintage events.  I certainly don't do it for pride - those formats are simply harder since most Vintage players are awful.  I like getting better at Magic - by playing against people of superior playskill - than I do winning anything BUT a Mox that I'm not liable to afford.

[Jacob Orlove]

Arguing that people should play another format is silly--we play this one because we enjoy it. No other format, and no other game can really compare to this one, so saying that someone should play "work at McDonalds" to "win" a mox just misses the entire point of playing Vintage.

[dicemanx]

Here's where the real problems lie from my estimation:

1. Too many people have a ridiculous sense of entitlement. For instance, sharing/discussing "new tech" is quickly assessed as "an integral part of maintaining the [vintage] community". However, getting information is a privledge, and if a person or group of people wish to not share their secrets, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Message boards such as this one are predicated to some degree on sharing of information, but there should be no expectancy or entitlement to any of that information. In fact, many of us would *prefer* if there was little sharing, for a number of reasons.

2. Too many people are too judgemental and dismissive, and their thoughts and language are laced with hyperbole. Perhaps it partly stems from being unable to grasp the concept of statistical significance or being unable to understand the value of anecdotal evidence. This problem is exacerbated by what Dandan has touched upon - the power levels and competence of players has risen dramatically, so it has become increasingly more difficult to assess the effect of subtle changes on match-up percentages.

3. Too many people are quick to dictate to others how they are supposed to enjoy the game. You can lump the people that have ever used the phrase "get a life" or something analogous. If someone is a cut-throat competitor who wishes to keep his secrets secret and plays for the joy of winning power, then more power to him. His reasons for playing and enjoying the game are not any less valid than playing "for fun" or just to "meet people" at events.

[Kasuras]

I have never attended a t1 tourney, nor have I ever met anyone here on tmd save for Pyromaniac; that was at a PTQ. I don't play vintage either, my testing is limited to MWS... which, let's be honest, is not really vintage. The reason I like vintage, even though I don't play it, is because it is so complex that I enjoy theorizing it. Not to mention that it is probably the only format where real discussion is possible, other formats are dictated by results and testing.

The only community I know is the online community, I have no reason to not share my knowledge or tech because my goal is actually to do so.

[forests failed you]

The actual problem is that Vintage doesn't have nearly as many skilled players and deck builders as the Extended and Standard formats.  Therefore it takes much longer for the decks and archetypes to evolve than it does for the other formats.  This may be because there are simply fewer players in general who actively participate in the Vntage Community than play Standard or Extended.  However, it may also be because Vintage really offers no monatary incentive for really gifted players and deck builders to play, other than pride.   

If you think the format is stagnet, do something about it:  Build a new deck, innovate an existing archetype, invent some tech of your own;  Rather than waiting for somebody else to write a primer, share their ideas, or hand you a new list.  The problem isn't the format, the problem is the lack deck builders.

[cssamerican]

I actually think the format only appears stagnant. The problem is there are only two ways for a deck to be recognized as good/decent. It has to win in a major event (SCG or Waterbury), or it has to have an article written on it by Steve. This is just the way people think, and there isn't too much you can do about that.

When people post new ideas here (Even Steve) people are extremely slow to accept them if it hasn't won anything. So, this means decks that aren't completely refined are looked at pretty harshly by the community. Just look at this thread in the Open Vintage Forum as an example. Are these decks uber broken? No, but it is possible they can be competitive. This attitude makes it impossible for any good deck builder who is not a great player to develop anything that will be accepted by the community as a whole. I am surprised we get as many people as we do posting new deck ideas, I would have thought they would have gotten tired of defending their ideas by now. I am not getting on to people who reject new ideas because there are a lot of bad ideas that get posted, and most people don't have time to go through all the trash to find the gems. All I am saying is he format isn't stagnant, the community is just really slow at accepting new ideas. So slow, that I bet some ideas were good when first posted, but by the time we seriously began to look at them the format as shifted in such a way as to make them obsolete.

[Smmenen]

I agree with that sentiment.  I hate the way people are so dismissive.  I have found that even when I perform with a deck, people just attribute it to me and not the deck possibly being good.

One of the things people forget is that EVERY deck starts out as "bad."  No deck, just being started, is going to beat everything out there.  It took a LONG time for even Groatog with 4 Gushes to be optimized and then feared.  People thought that Keeper pwned it.  Stax took a really really long time to get respect. 

Developing good decks takes time and people dismiss too many ideas before they have had time to fully germinate. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

Developing good decks takes time and people dismiss too many ideas before they have had time to fully germinate.

Both of these points are very important.  To add, we should all realize how much this site has (and does) contribute to the refinement of different archetypes through reiterated discussion.  It's likely that most of the real gems of deck development that go on occur in the dimly lit tech labs of our constituents, but that doesn't mean they're a finished product.  It also doesn't mean they're correctly interpreted upon being debuted.

As far as lack of innovation, I think a lot of it has to do with the quality of the cards they print.  As far as diversity, I'll just say that I am fresh from Waterbury, and I played against 8 different decks in 9 rounds.

Regarding the 'EU vs US', or the 'my metgame is better than yours', I think we're all better than that, and more importantly, it doesn't have to do much with the topic.

[Zherbus]

It's all because I stopped evolving XcC decks. Think about it, the timing is right!

Seriously though:

I hate the way people are so dismissive.  I have found that even when I perform with a deck, people just attribute it to me and not the deck possibly being good.

I got that a lot too. And the lesser known people got 'lucky' until they Rich Shay'd (yes, once upon a time he was an unknown in Vintage) their way into respect.