Where do you feel you can do better, Vintage or PTQ's?

[SonataOfTheCathedral]

I discussed this over with many people this weekend and many of us Vintage players that play other formats as well find Vintage a thousand times easier. I feel I can consistently put Top 8's into large Vintage events much easier then PTQ's.

If I am lucky I can Top 8 one constructed PTQ a year, and one limited PTQ a year. But some people can do zero hours of playtesting a month for Vintage and put a few Top 8's in. I know I never sling a deck of Vintage cards alone in my room. What is the deal with that.

Some nights I stay up till 4 am, with my stack of Extended playables trying to get an edge in the format and figuring out my plan of attack for the next PTQ and I end up 7-2. Then in Vintage I can throw lots of dumb cards in my deck and still do fine.

I'm also not the only one who believe in this, Jeff Folinus shared the same opinion with me at the PTQ in Philly, as did Dave Feinstein on several occasions. Many other players said "obv obv" on my comments as well. The only person that I can think of that disagreed was Brian Demars, who I believe has extensive PTQ experience and has won a PTQ before and scrubbed on the Pro Tour (like many of us) feels he has an easier time top 8ing at PTQ's.


Just some randomness, I thought I'd like to share.

-Elias

[kirdape3]

PTQs around here aren't that difficult to be honest.  The key with large Vintage events is that at the higher tables, everyone's liable to be good, whereas in a PTQ you are running into the following situations:

1) Good players with obsolete lists
2) Bad players with good lists of the best decks (constructed) or utterly busted Sealed pools (limited)
3) Good players with up to date lists - those are the scary ones

Here there are very few of the former, tons of the center, and very few of the latter.

[OfficeShredder]

How many vintage tournaments do you go to that are large enough that 7-2 doesn't top 8?

It's going to be a lot easier to top 8 in a tournament with half as many people

[Smmenen]

The last PTQ I played in was Jan of 2005 with about 90 players.   I played UW Desire having done no testing for the format (it was Extended) and I easily stomped most of the swiss and before round 6 I was 4-0-1.  In round 6, there was a judging fiasco and I ended up losing the match.   THis was the debut of "teen titans' and I was playing the guy who created the deck and who was playing it for the first time (he ended up winning the PTQ).   There were a ton of various timing errors that he made but the judges let him "redo" the series of plays because he lied about his intent (imo).   I was still a lock for top 8 if I won the next round and my opponent was playing mono green Tangle Wire crap deck.  I easily won game 1 by comboing out quickly.  IN game two, I desired for 11 with about 25 cards left in my deck and saw no more Desires or a win condition or any draw at all.  It was a combination of Sapphire Medallions and Sunscape Familiars and mana.    I couldn't believe I lost.  Then in game three, of course, I mulligan to 5 and never see another land. 

Anyway, I almost made top 8 in a PTQ when I never played that particular format before going into that tournament and have never played in a PTQ since. 

As for Vintage, I've made top 8 in at least 6 SCG events and 9th place in two more (having attended 12 I think).  I guess that means that Vintage is easier since I have a roughly 50% batting average at making top 8 at major vintage events.   

 

[Godder]

I won a Regionals with 5-0-1 playing a borrowed deck I hadn't used before (Slide), with no testing at all. In fact, other than what I was told on the day of the event, I knew very little about it. Nonetheless, I'd pick Vintage for me because it's something I follow, and few other New Zealanders do.

[InfinityCircuit]

I think a comment made on another thread is very applicable here (I honestly can't remember where - I think it was comment by Anusien).  Someone mentioned that old Vintage players have experience with pure archetypes and therefore, when moving to a different format have a better understanding of how cards interact.  The example given in the thread was that once you have learned how to play Forbiddian or Draw-Go it is easier to just pick up a deck from standard because it has similar mechanics.  Therefore, it seems that a good vintage player should have a good chance at a PTQ as well if they are familiar with the archetype being played.

[Atlatl]

With exceptions to every circumstance, of course, I find that the caliber of player who is devoted to playing Vintage at a much higher level than those who slam down a few bucks on the new sets and build netdeck2007.dec. Most of us have been playing MTG since the early 90's, and have a lot more experience with the game than random_player_01 in a standard or extended match. Thus, many of us can take untested decks to success in said format; though the cards change, the principles and experience speaks for itself.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum, there are those who are on-par with this caliber of player who chooses to play professionally in standard or extended matches. If these people were to put their collective minds towards Vintage, then I'm sure they would shine as much as any top Vintage player - the pendulum swings both directions.

On average, though, I think the Vintage player is (likely) a much better player than the Standard player.

[LotusHead]

I have no Idea what kind of metagames PT Qualifiers is like.

When I play T2 or Extended (PTQ fodder I assume) I just hope my stupid T2 decks that are Post ROtation Extended do the job.

Budget ORzov (w/3Angels o Despair) or Splice Girls or "Fusilade" (think Token non broken, but with fusilade) go the distance.

T1? Bring it ON!!!

[UR]

On average, though, I think the Vintage player is (likely) a much better player than the Standard player.

Believe me when I say that the average Vintage player sucks even more than the average Standard player. That isn't meant as an offense to anybody here, but just an observation after those 10+ years of magic...

I play every format in M:tG and the most difficult tournaments are always limited PTQs followed by Extended and then Standard. The outcome of your limited PTQ is ofcourse largely dependant on your pool and that is something you can't really influence. But even with a good pool it is insanely difficult to actually win through 8 rounds of swiss followed by a T8. The decks you face get better each round and most of the time, the players do as well. Now, I'm not that bad a player... the problem is that I can't stay focussed for six rounds in a row or more. So that is why I think Vintage is soooo much easier...

In Vintage, you don't really have to focus all of the time... You can get hands that play themselves and so does your opponent. There are enough games where there is absolutely 0 skill involved and they offer some relief from the mental excersize you are putting yourself through.  Also, Vintage tournaments don't usually last 8 rounds so you aren't completely brainfried when you get to the T8 stage of the tourney.

What is more is that I play Vintage to have fun... just go out, have a laugh and drink with some friends. T2 is much more competative than that and I don't really like that atmosphere... this ofcourse influences your state of mind and your ability to play as well. In my case being relaxed helps.

[Smmenen]

After some reflection, I’ve decided that this  thread is troublesome.    It prompts me to inquire as to Elias’ motivation for starting it.    Elias: are you *genuinely* curious what other people think as your subject heading suggests, or is it “just random thought you’d like to share” as you suggest at the end of your post or, and the third possibility seems most likely, that this is neither a “random thought” nor a genuine inquiry, but an expression of a particular view that has been bubbling up inside of you.   

As such, I would like to register my displeasure with this thread.   

Think about it:  assume that you are right and, as you put it, “Vintage is a million times easier” than Standard, what purposes does such an assessment serve?   It denigrates Vintage players and undermines their achievement and pride.   And if you are wrong, which I promise you are – because “a thousand times easier” is sheer hyperbole, then it becomes a pointless debate whose most likely outcome is flaming, bitter feeling, and ill will.  And those who stand up and say that the Vintage player is better than the average standard player look silly for many reasons, one of which is the historically inferior rank of Vintage to other formats as well as the scoffing such comments will undoubtedly incur from players such as The Method, etc – players here who regularly play other formats.   

Reasoned discourse – those who would criticize the premise or would try to say that the player’s skills are roughly equal or vary or dependent upon factors beyond the question of format have no place in this thread because the question is set up as a binary at the outset.  Even from an objective standpoint, there is no way to measure and compare standard and vintage players at the PTQ and SCG/Waterbury Circuit level in a direct way since the formats are constantly changing and demand different skill sets.   

Ultimately then, this thread serves no creative or useful purpose and will inevitably degenerate.   It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that the purpose of this thread is an expression of the original posters view that built up after/during the waterbury and probably is based upon some emotional feelings rather than cool reflection rather than “a random thought” or a genuine inquiry.   As such, I think this thread should be closed before it degenerates.   

[Hi-Val]

Since I can't see any problem with this topic, I won't be locking this thread unless it turns into a "omg standard suxx" argument, which it won't.

[Anusien]

Part of what I find fascinating about the Constructed formats is that they're unsolved.  While in Vintage we will continue to optimize to better use Gifts Ungiven and Ancestral Recall, the format is essentially settled, with 5 card tweaks being considered major.  By contrast, Extended is wide open and extremely diverse.  There is more of a potential deckbuilding advantage in 1.x and T2.

[SonataOfTheCathedral]

Steve by no means do I want to make the Vintage community look bad at all. Just lately I have been struggling in PTQ's. It has been very difficult for me to get the edge in them. While I do no playtesting for Vintage and have a much easier time. It is that simple. I'm curious to know what is the general consensus of the TMD readers that play multiple formats. It might be that I'm looking for a comfort zone, and I am not sure if I am hitting a wave of bad luck at the PTQ's lately.

[Smmenen]

Steve by no means do I want to make the Vintage community look bad at all. Just lately I have been struggling in PTQ's. It has been very difficult for me to get the edge in them. While I do no playtesting for Vintage and have a much easier time. It is that simple. I'm curious to know what is the general consensus of the TMD readers that play multiple formats. It might be that I'm looking for a comfort zone, and I am not sure if I am hitting a wave of bad luck at the PTQ's lately.

I’ll take you at your word that you are genuinely curious about the general state of opinion regarding the relative difficulty of Vintage compared to PTQ formats, and the PTQ circuit in general, despite the fact that the tone, emphasis, or language of your opening post suggested alternative motivation – primarily expressive in nature rather than inquisitive (particularly the point “random thoughts I thought I would share” (the act of sharing is different in my view from the act of investigating or asking)). 

However, even if your intent is not to make the Vintage community look bad, as it surely is not the intent of suburban communities to exclude low-income minorities from their neighborhoods when they enact minimum lot requirements and family density specifications, it is nonetheless the a clear and evident consequence of such an action.   

There are a limited number of responses to your question.   The first is those who say that Vintage is much easier than PTQs, as you did in your opening remarks (putting aside the hyperbole of “a thousand times easier”).   The second is those who might say that they are roughly as difficult.  And the third is those who might say that Vintage is much harder.   We could add two categories for those whose views fall somewhere between the first and the second and those whose views fall somewhere between the second and third groups.   The problem I have is that no matter which response you give, it will make the Vintage community and players look bad.   Consider: A person says that Vintage is much easier than PTQs, then it denigrates the achievement of Vintage players in general by making a false and unnecessary comparison.  Those who say that Vintage is much harder are made to look silly and foolish as it almost immediately raises the suspicion if not presumption that such a player is a “noob,” “scrub,” or other such colloquialism.   And those who might honestly fall in the middle are automatically left out of the debate set up by your false binary.   That’s because only those who feel inclined one or way the other will likely post because, as a general principle, people only post when they feel motivated to do so or feel that they have something to say.   

[Corvel]

It's my oppinion that Vintage is a bit harder than the other Constructed formats.  After playing strictly Vintage for about a year I then started to play Standard again.  The plays in stanard just seemed obvious compared to some of those in Vintage.  I think it is the lack of constant involvement that makes pleople who don't truly understand Vintage question the skill it takes.  In Standard you and your opponent are usualy constantly involved with each other, making plays back and forth.  However, in Vintage there is less involvement in general terms so it might feel as if the format requires less skill.  It's just that in my oppinion the plays in Constructed are just much more obvious than those in Vintage.

[zeus-online]

In type 1 alot of players play the same deck for way longer then they COULD play a type 2 deck, thus mastering it at a whole other level...therefore they can take said deck into a tourney with no testing and still do fine.

/Zeus

[Hi-Val]

There are a limited number of responses to your question.   The first is those who say that Vintage is much easier than PTQs, as you did in your opening remarks (putting aside the hyperbole of “a thousand times easier”).   The second is those who might say that they are roughly as difficult.  And the third is those who might say that Vintage is much harder.   We could add two categories for those whose views fall somewhere between the first and the second and those whose views fall somewhere between the second and third groups.   The problem I have is that no matter which response you give, it will make the Vintage community and players look bad.   Consider: A person says that Vintage is much easier than PTQs, then it denigrates the achievement of Vintage players in general by making a false and unnecessary comparison.  Those who say that Vintage is much harder are made to look silly and foolish as it almost immediately raises the suspicion if not presumption that such a player is a “noob,” “scrub,” or other such colloquialism.   And those who might honestly fall in the middle are automatically left out of the debate set up by your false binary.   That’s because only those who feel inclined one or way the other will likely post because, as a general principle, people only post when they feel motivated to do so or feel that they have something to say.   

That's only motivated by an objectivist viewpoint though, and doesn't take into account the idea of an individual's experiences reaching no further than the individual. One could say "in my personal experience, PTQs are less challenging than vintage for me", which is a fine statement that does not discuss any community in general. One may just be a heck of a lot better a drafting than at Vintage, but in your bifurcation, you allow no room for that. If there's any false binary being set up, it's by you and not the OP; personal experience and opinion is all that matters here, and one can have a completely different, completely correct opinion.

Or in the words of the Big Lebowski: "well that's just like, your opinion, man."

[Parcher]

I think that the skill level at PTQs is as a whole, less than that you will find at major Vintage events. I think the reason that some might find that environment more difficult is what I cal the "WTF!?" factor.
l
In the Eternal formats, you can quite quickly diagnose what your opponent is playing, and therefore what your optimal lines of play should be. As illustrated in Demar's latest report, even something as minor as a maindecked Misdirection in Fish can elicit the "WTF!?", and cause your previous plays to be sub-optimal.

In the newer formats, this happens far more often. In my opinion this is for two reasons. One, there are a larger number of players who might favor what the majority construe as "jank" cards in established decks. Either this, or play decks that are far from the mainstream. This makes it very difficult for those in the Eternal community to adjust, as it is a format they are unfamilair with, and now they have no idea what to expect from their opponent.

Two, with the as Anusien stated, "unsolved" nature  of these formats, it is difficult for someone who does not play in them regularly to have any significant amount of testing against every deck in them. This also can lead to a "WTF!?" moment. For someone who has never played against Dirty Kitty, you see first turn Skirk Prospector, second turn Goblin Piledriver, you expect a Goblin rush. Then when they drop Fecundity on turn three, and cast Empty the Warrens for ten, you are caught off guard.

While I agree that there are certain deck archetypes that any good player will recognize, and have a good idea of how to play against, this doesn't alway translate during a tournament. The fact that PTQs have always held some degree of randomness is uncontested. You add in the diversity of the "unevolved" metagame, and the fact that most Eternal players have neither the time, nor the inclination to thoroughly investigate all of said formats, I am unsuprised that one would find this a more difficult environment to play well in than the more established formats.

[Vegeta2711]

For me, since many of the semi-pro's around here play in the Vintage tourneys (It's like free money for them), the two are close to the same for me. Personally I think the PTQ's are harder, at least for Limited and Extended, than any of the Vintage tourneys I can play around here. Having to go through 8 or 9 rounds of good decks, and in the later rounds at least, really good players is simply far tougher than having to go through only 5-6 rounds. Also the ceiling of the pros at the PTQ's is way higher skillwise than the ones that only play Vintage.

Limited PTQing is even more annoying, because then there could be a huge deck mismatch you have to start fighting through. How amusing.

[amidtownrocker]

Elias, I have played in every format as you have seen me at all the local PTQs and local Legacy events, as well around the aisles of TMD Opens. I have also enjoyed success in both, playing on the tour and enjoying a TMD Open win and I would def have to agree with you in that the PTQ scene as a whole is hard to win.

Part of this difficulty is not always the players. It is because of the extra three rounds that most PTQs last.  Each round is just more stress and more pressure.  Its hard to get lucky over 8-9 rounds and make it in and still have enough gas and luck for 3 more rounds.  When you are playing vintage, you can string together 4 lucky rounds and double draw into the top8 and win the whole thing before the PTQ even ends their swiss rounds.

Another factor that someone hasn't that I'm surprised no one has brought up is start times.  Majority of Vintage events I have attended have started at 12, and as we all know, NO magic tournament starts on time (even PT Honolulu was behind 20 mins) so we really look at around 1230 or so.  So given that nearly every PTQ starts at 10, that equals less sleep, and for some of us, sleep is the most important thing to playing to the best of our ability.

One thing I have been thinking about in Vintage lately is how much it takes to win a given games.  I have played many times against an oppnonent that was making mistake, after mistake.  Clearly trying to throw the game I thought, but out of no where they win.  They topdeck Will or Tinker or any of the formats other game swinging cards.  In any of the other constructed formats, no cards have this effect on the gamestate.  Nothing is as powerful as a topdecked Will  from a bad player that you just thought ran out of gas and you were setting up your win.  It is frustrating.  In Extended, Standard, and even Legacy there is just so much more interaction.  You have a better chance to out play your opponent as I see it.

I have played plenty of games of Magic where your chances to win the game are very very slim.  It seems that the percentage of these games in any given format is definetly higher in Vintage.

In short, I agree with Elias that it is harder to win at an average PTQ, and not solely based on skill levels, but on many other levels as well.

[forests failed you]

I think that it is kind of a moot point to argue over which format, or touranment scene, is harder.  Large scale Vintage events, and PTQs and GPs for different formats really test different aspects of one's play and deck building skills. 

For instance:  I think it would be very difficult for a random newb to pick up one of the best decks in Vintage, ie Tendrils, Gifts Slaver..., and play it to a Top 8 finish at a major Vintage event.  I'm sure that it happens on occasion, however not nearly as often as Timmy opens five bomb rares at a Limited PTQ and makes top 8.  At the last PTQ I attended I lost in the last round to a fairly weak player who had Sudden Spoiling, Plague Sliver, Sulferous Blast, Rift Bolt, Jaya Ballard, and Double Strangling Soot in his deck.  Sudden Spoiling > Tromp the Dominions.  It happens.

However, in Vintage you can lose to essentiall the same set of circumstances.  Random guy draws a bunch of restricted cards and you don't have Force of Will.

The point that I'm trying to make is this:  Every format has its weaknesses, and caitors to the strengths of different players.

Standard is very straightforward.  The cards are fairly week, and the card pool limited.  Moreso than any othe format Standard places a very strong emphasis on deckbuilding and familiarity with the cards that each deck runs.  However, games tend to be very close and tight play is greatly rewarded.

Limited is kind of out there:  Deck building and being able to evaluate cards is central.  However, there is the random element of "did I actually open good cards, or are my opponent's actually just better than mine."

Vintage:  Deckbuilding is important, but the cards can tend to play themselves.  In Vintage familiarity with the cards is paramount, as is pattern recognition.  Solid technical skill is perhaps more important in Vintage than any other format, since the cards are so powerful that given even a slight opening an opponent can cause great damage to your game plan.

I think that both are equally difficult to top eight, and especially to win.  And if one does well at either that person should be very proud of their accomplishments.

[MarkPharaoh]

Elias, you also have to remember that our PTQ fields in the tri-state are extremely competitive, with at least 20 players that have their PT cherry popped and several other semi-pros that fell off the gravy train.  I personally find making a T8 at a Vintage Tournament much easier than a PTQ Top8; however, a lot of that has to do with the pure randomness of a PTQ and not really with the skill of the players.  Constructed metagames shift very frequently, espically with MTGO growing in size at a steady rate, which allows people to test 24/7, but I think if the current Extended PTQs were just as stagnant as Vintage I would find Vintage to be harder to post solid results in.

[Shock Wave]

From what I've observed, it seems that Vintage has the lowest concentration of good players at a given event, although this is certainly changing. 5 years ago, in my local scene, I could enter a 30-40 man event and expect to either T8 and have a good shot at winning the whole thing. Now, the play skill has improved drastically and I can no longer expect a "bye". Every player has to earn their way now.

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, the concentration of skilled play in Vintage is still behind the other formats. However, this does not indicate that the format itself is less skill intensive. Regardless of the format, the best players are the ones that will garner the most T8s in the long run. Luck is as much a factor in Vintage as it is in any other format.

In a nutshell, the reason why it is more difficult to T8 in a PTQ is pretty clear: There are generally more players at these events, meaning more rounds, and the quality of the opponents is generally higher.