[Premium Article] So Many Insane Plays -- Future Sight Set Review

[Smmenen]

http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/14047.html

An exhaustive look at Future Sight and the changes it heralds. 

blurb:

Stephen, it seems, loves Future Sight. For this set at least, he seems to be the Anti-Remie. He believes there are cards — and one card in particular — that will warp the format into interesting shapes. Today's article spills the beans on those broken cards that Vintage players across the globe will covet for their foil goodness. If you're keen on Vintage, then you can't miss this!

[Moxlotus]

This set will definitely change type 1.  Ichorid looks to get stronger and become a real contender.  Looks like Leyline of the Void might be showing up in more sideboards!

[dicemanx]

There are a number of other cards that I haven't mentioned which are interesting for their design properties alone. I think this is an incredibly exciting set that should reinvigorate every Magic player, reminding them not only how much fun the game is, but also how young it is.

I am going to be make a prediction. I think the tremendous design advances in this set signal a new era in Magic design. I feel like Magic is finally leaving adolescence, the awkwardness of that age, and entering adulthood. All of the blemishes are going away and the game's designers seem more and more confident that they know what they are doing. Great stuff.

Steve, what do you think of the view that this set will further reinforce the perception that vintage is too fast, and thus too luck based, and thus be less attrctive to prospective players or ultimately turn away existing players? We struggle to overcome such perceptions, and here we have a set that seems to specifically cater to making fast decks faster (the Ichorid toys), leaner (60 to 56 cards), and more resilient to an early FoW/disruption (Pact). Aside from the initial excitement of having new toys to play with and innovate with, do you not feel that this is taking vintage in the wrong direction in the long term?

Is the "adulthood" that we are progessing towards resilient turn 1-2 kills? What "blemishes" are you referring to that this set is correcting? Is the enabling of faster combo a signal that the game designers "know what they are doing"?

[Smmenen]

There are a number of other cards that I haven't mentioned which are interesting for their design properties alone. I think this is an incredibly exciting set that should reinvigorate every Magic player, reminding them not only how much fun the game is, but also how young it is.

I am going to be make a prediction. I think the tremendous design advances in this set signal a new era in Magic design. I feel like Magic is finally leaving adolescence, the awkwardness of that age, and entering adulthood. All of the blemishes are going away and the game's designers seem more and more confident that they know what they are doing. Great stuff.

Steve, what do you think of the view that this set will further reinforce the perception that vintage is too fast, and thus too luck based, and thus be less attrctive to prospective players or ultimately turn away existing players?

That’s quite a complicated sentence Peter.   First of all, you are talking about perception, but your own terms.   So, we aren’t talking about reality?   Second, there is a chain of inference in your question:

Perception of Vintage:
As too fast --> too luck based --> less attractive

To me, being fast doesn’t necessarily mean too luck based.  I don’t agree with that judgment, so I already don’t agree with the chain of inference. 

Certainly, this set (specifically with Pact and Street Wraith) have the potential to reinforce the perception of Vintage as “too fast” – but I hate to break it to you, the genie is already out of the bottle on that one.    99 of 100 magic players will probably tell you that Vintage is too fast.   And nothing anyone can do with change that perception.   Vintage will always be faster than other formats and thus will always have the “perception” of being “too fast.”   It will always make Standard look like the tortoise. 

I don’t think this set will really reinforce the general perception of Vintage any more than it already is.   You seem to imply that there will be some change in the perception of Vintage with this set – I don’t think that’s the case. 

We struggle to overcome such perceptions,

Do we?   If so, then we are Sisyphus.   It’s an impossible task to show that Vintage is not “too fast.”  The fundamental turn in Vintage, regardless of the banned and restricted list, will always been “too” fast for most magic players.   I don’t think we really can overcome such perceptions.   

The cards that make Vintage fun and interesting are also many of the same cards that contribute to its speed.  Thus, the allure of Vintage is also what creates the impression you seem to find troubling.   I think Vintage players should rather shine a lantern on that problem rather than try to hide it. 

and here we have a set that seems to specifically cater to making fast decks faster (the Ichorid toys),

But that isn’t a bad thing.   A five proxy deck that can be built on a super budget is a good thing imo.    I hope more and more people pick up Ichorid. 

Aside from the initial excitement of having new toys to play with and innovate with, do you not feel that this is taking vintage in the wrong direction in the long term?

Not really.   I am shocked that they printed Street Wraith, but I think it will ultimately make decisions harder, not easier.   I see this set as a radical move in the same direction, whether that is the wrong direction or not, I suspect that it is not. 

Is the "adulthood" that we are progessing towards resilient turn 1-2 kills?

That paragraph was geared more toward magic in general, not vintage.   I think that the design in this set signals a shift in design overall.   

Is Vintage getting slightly faster?   Sure.  But I think that there are fundamentally limits on how fast it can get.   

Remember my article on “Improving Ichorid” in January?  I posted a list called “Ichorid Blitz.”   I discussed how Ichorid could be built to focus on winning on turn two.  But I also suggested that it would be silly to play that list.   

Speed is not the only consideration in design.   The Ichorid list with the fastest goldfish is not the best Ichorid list.  I still feel that way.  I think that designing for speed alone is a huge mistake.    You want resilience and ability to fight through hate.   Thus, I ran Petrified Field as an answer to Bazaar. 

What "blemishes" are you referring to that this set is correcting? Is the enabling of faster combo a signal that the game designers "know what they are doing"?

Again, I was speaking to magic design in general. 

[dicemanx]

Perception of Vintage:
As too fast --> too luck based --> less attractive

To me, being fast doesn’t necessarily mean too luck based.

That's why I called it perception as opposed to reality.

Vintage magic suffers from two misconceptions: that it is inacessible, and that it is too luck based. Future Sight is certainly not going to help matters as far as the latter misconception is concerned. Furthermore, it might actually contribute to the transformation of what was once a MISconception into actual reality! This is why I said that in the short term you generate some excitement at the prospect of wielding the fast turn 1-2 kill decks, but in the long term this would not make for an exciting format if you push things towards limiting interactivity. There will be considerable skill in identifying how to best abuse these cards, but again that is more of a short term consideration.

Certainly, this set (specifically with Pact and Street Wraith) have the potential to reinforce the perception of Vintage as “too fast” – but I hate to break it to you, the genie is already out of the bottle on that one.    99 of 100 magic players will probably tell you that Vintage is too fast.   And nothing anyone can do with change that perception.   Vintage will always be faster than other formats and thus will always have the “perception” of being “too fast.”

That the "genie is out of the bottle" doesn't mean that we cannot or that we don't already actively fight such misconceptions (unless you think that no one's mind can be changed at this point). The Future Sight cards will make it that much tougher to convince people that this format is worth playing, because if the (temporary) excitement is generated over how we can use "fundamentally broken" spells and push the goldfish and limit interactivity, think how that makes the format even less attractive to potential newcomers. Think also how it's going to look to longtime players as well - do you think that most relish the direction this format is heading towards?

I don’t think this set will really reinforce the general perception of Vintage any more than it already is.   You seem to imply that there will be some change in the perception of Vintage with this set – I don’t think that’s the case.

Again Steve, it seems you're satisfied in thinking in terms of absolutes instead of degree. The good news is that the place where we're heading isn't necessarily something that the B/R list won't be able to fix, and who knows, maybe FS will be the set that breaks the camel's back and gets YWill banned. The bad news is that we might have to suffer a little to get there, because of the amount of scrutiny and "proof" that any changes seem to require these days.

[diopter]

The good news is that the place where we're heading isn't necessarily something that the B/R list won't be able to fix, and who knows, maybe FS will be the set that breaks the camel's back and gets YWill banned. The bad news is that we might have to suffer a little to get there, because of the amount of scrutiny and "proof" that any changes seem to require these days.

You express disdain when you state that proof and scrutiny are required before implementing a drastic change like banning.

But that sort of proof is required, because while a banning would increase the enjoyment of the format for some people (such as yourself), it would decrease the enjoyment for other people (such as myself).

You would need to prove that the net gain from banning Yawg Will is positive. And not just marginally (e.g. 51/49) positive, but significantly positive. Because restrictions and bans are last resorts.

[jcb193]

I'm not ready to get into some pseudo-intellectual debate, and I understand the elements of interactivity of high powered decks, but it is hard for me to understand how faster decks does not allow for more luck.

If faster decks means that critical stage is now 2nd turn, I would have to guess that the game of Magic is involving the interaction of 7-10 cards, not 10-20 cards.  Obviously if you start chaining spells, and Draw 7s, it grows, but your ability to grow is still based on that 7-10 initial cards?  If each person started with 3 cards in their hand, would luck not play a part?

All I am saying is if the critical turn is 2 versus 5, it's hard for me to believe that luck will not play an increasing part of the former game.  How significant, I don't know. 

[o]

Street Wraith is awful in anything without dredge.  It improves your card quality by a very small amount, but how much it screws you on mulligan decisions far outweighs this.

[dicemanx]

But that sort of proof is required, because while a banning would increase the enjoyment of the format for some people (such as yourself), it would decrease the enjoyment for other people (such as myself).

You mean proof is required like it was required for any previous vintage B/R decision, right? Well, most decisions in the past few years were based more on feeling than any hard data, and things turned out quite fine. Note that many B/R decisions were designed to ensure that few cards existed in the format that would enable very quick wins (restriction of tutors, or restriction of cards like Trinisphere, Entomb, LED etc). They stopped doing that for some reason, which is unfortunate.

There is simply no past precedent in terms of requiring the type of proof that you speak of, for a simple reason - precision is not required when it comes to a B/R decision. Even a decision that some might deem unnecessary or knee-jerk is not automatically a bad decision, by virtue of the fact that the game is a dynamic, constantly shifting entity, and any such changes are really just par for the course.

Street Wraith is awful in anything without dredge.  It improves your card quality by a very small amount, but how much it screws you on mulligan decisions far outweighs this.

Is this based on testing or your intuition? I've been two-fisting a few non-Ichorid decks with Wraiths included, and theyhaven't really impacted the games that negatively. That doesn't mean that they are an automatic addition to every deck of course, but its too early to tell for me at least.

[Smmenen]

Perception of Vintage:
As too fast --> too luck based --> less attractive

To me, being fast doesn’t necessarily mean too luck based.

That's why I called it perception as opposed to reality.

On the other hand, being “too fast” does make a format less attractive.   I think that is reality, not just perception.   As I read your first post, you seemed to suggest that the perception of being too fast results in a perception of being too luck based, and it is the latter perception that makes the format less attractive.  My reading of your post is based on a parsing of a sentence where you use the word “thus” twice.   I think that it may be that there is a perception of vintage being too luck based, but I don’t think it is a perception of being too luck based that makes Vintage unattractive.  I think that Vintage is unattractive to many players because it is so fast, among other reasons.  In other words, I don’t think you need the middle link to connect being fast and being less attractive.

Vintage magic suffers from two misconceptions: that it is inacessible, and that it is too luck based.

I’m not sure that this premise is acceptable, apart from the overbroad phrasing. 

I really can’t point to anyone in mainstream magic or really even here that says that Vintage is too luck based.   I haven’t heard that claim articulated very often at all (and mostly before 2003), certainly not enough to say that it is common misconception about vintage.   I’ve heard many related, but non-coterminous claims.  It seems to me that you may be conflating this claim with others.  I have heard you voice this concern before, but I don’t think that that is enough to really say that this is a common misconception about vintage.   

In addition, I’m not sure it really is a misconception to say that Vintage is inaccessible.   I think the barriers to entry are formidable and substantial.    Vintage cards are far more expensive than in any other format.   While you may be able to build a deck and play the same deck over time and ultimately have it cost less than building for other formats, it’s still not cheap and requires a long-term investment.   Moreover, building for one deck doesn’t mean you can play another.   Moreso than just the cost of playing, the learning curve is quite steep.  You are dealing with cards and interactions that are non-existent in other formats.  I think learning the nuances of various matchups and learning how to play some of the decks are huge barriers to entry.   New players make game-losing play mistakes all the time. 

It seems to me that if there are misconceptions about Vintage, it is that vintage is not very interactive (a function of speed) and not very in-game play skill intensive.   I remember reading a piece by Mike Flores where he said that in other formats deck design is 80%, but in vintage it is 99%.   I may be misquoting, but that was my recollection.
 

 Future Sight is certainly not going to help matters as far as the latter misconception is concerned. Furthermore, it might actually contribute to the transformation of what was once a MISconception into actual reality! This is why I said that in the short term you generate some excitement at the prospect of wielding the fast turn 1-2 kill decks, but in the long term this would not make for an exciting format if you push things towards limiting interactivity.

I think you may be confusing speed with luck.   

Your post and my reply opens with the claim that we both agree that being fast does not mean that a deck is luck-based.   You stated that this was a misperception.  But then you seem to be suggesting that the presence of Pact of Negation has the potential to speed up the format and thus make it seem more luck-based.   If we agree that speed is not the same as luck, then why would Pact of Negation make the format seem more luck based?   

There will be considerable skill in identifying how to best abuse these cards, but again that is more of a short term consideration.

Why? 

Certainly, this set (specifically with Pact and Street Wraith) have the potential to reinforce the perception of Vintage as “too fast” – but I hate to break it to you, the genie is already out of the bottle on that one.    99 of 100 magic players will probably tell you that Vintage is too fast.   And nothing anyone can do with change that perception.   Vintage will always be faster than other formats and thus will always have the “perception” of being “too fast.”

That the "genie is out of the bottle" doesn't mean that we cannot or that we don't already actively fight such misconceptions (unless you think that no one's mind can be changed at this point).

If you think that the two major misperceptions about vintage are that it is too luck based and that it is too inaccessible, then it would seem that you don’t think that the view of Vintage as too fast is a misconception.  But here you suggest that you think it is.   Which is it?   

Also, remember that “too” in “too fast” is relative and subjective.   Vintage will always be considered “fast” because it will always be the fastest format of the sanctioned formats.   Since speed is relative, Vintage cannot escape being perceived as fast.   For instance, in 1850, the steam boat and the train were probably considered vast.   In the era of jet airplanes and travel at the speed of sound, those modes of transport aren’t considered that fast.   Vintage will always have a lower fundamental turn than every other format.   Therefore, it will always be considered fast.  For people who are used to and comfortable with the speed of other formats, Vintage will often seem “too” fast.   Wizards agrees.   That’s why acceleration like Black Lotus and the Moxen were considered mistakes.   

I know people think that Legacy is too fast, and that format has a fundamental turn at least one turn slower than Vintage.    For those people, how do you think they perceive Vintage?    For people who just want to attack with creatures, Vintage will always be too fast.   Most people aren’t used to all of the crazy interactions that begin on turn one in Vintage.   Part of being too fast is also the fact that small plays count for so much.   Fetching out the wrong color of land can lead to a game loss.  Many players want a format that is slower so that such small things don’t make such a huge difference.   

The Future Sight cards will make it that much tougher to convince people that this format is worth playing, because if the (temporary) excitement is generated over how we can use "fundamentally broken" spells and push the goldfish and limit interactivity, think how that makes the format even less attractive to potential newcomers.

The sky is not falling.   The format is already unattractive to many players.   Trying to convince new players that Vintage is worth playing because it isn’t as slow or broken as they may think is not a strategy for winning converts.   On the contrary, it seems to me that the allure of Vintage is the brokenness and speed.  Trumping the crazy number of interactions and potential brokenness is exactly what makes Vintage so unique.   The trick is also persuading people that it is skill-intensive, which it absolutely is.   

Think also how it's going to look to longtime players as well - do you think that most relish the direction this format is heading towards?

I honestly don’t know if people “relish” the direction the format is heading or not.   But, as I’ve said this many times, but the goal has never been to maximize the number of Vintage players.    If the goal was simply to maximize the number of Vintage players, one could arguably achieve that by restricting and banning things until burn and Keeper were the two best decks.    The goal is to achieve and maintain competitive balance and a healthy diversity of decks, and ensure that skill matters.   All three of these goals seem to be well sustained right now.   If anything, I think that Future Sight should expand the range of viable decks.   If Pact of Negation is good, as I say in the article, it will be good by bringing marginal combo back into the mainstream (unless it is broken, in which case it will just make Yawg Will even more abused).   Ichorid also becomes more playable, which no one seemed to think before this set (partly as a consequence of Extirpate).   

I don’t think this set will really reinforce the general perception of Vintage any more than it already is.   You seem to imply that there will be some change in the perception of Vintage with this set – I don’t think that’s the case.

Again Steve, it seems you're satisfied in thinking in terms of absolutes instead of degree.

I honestly don’t think so.    Think about it.   Put yourself in the shoes of the average magic player and try to imagine the stereotypes or impression they may have of Vintage.   Are any of those stereotypes or impressions shaken or even moved by Future Sight?   Even marginally?   

I don’t think so.   I think that Future Sight is consistent with the general impression of Vintage, but I seriously doubt it has the power to make people think Vintage is any more than they already thought it to be.   Vintage is so well defined already that one set that contributes a half dozen cards probably makes zero difference in the format’s general perception. 

The good news is that the place where we're heading isn't necessarily something that the B/R list won't be able to fix, and who knows, maybe FS will be the set that breaks the camel's back and gets YWill banned. The bad news is that we might have to suffer a little to get there, because of the amount of scrutiny and "proof" that any changes seem to require these days.

If Yawg Will is banned, I would be the first to applaud. 

[Vegeta2711]

Street Wraith is awful in anything without dredge.  It improves your card quality by a very small amount, but how much it screws you on mulligan decisions far outweighs this.

I know everyone wants to pretend they suck at magic so they don't have to play this card, but seriously, the card goes in pretty much all combo from what initial testing indicates. Possibly control as well; I know Shay has been testing it out and as soon as he saw the card cut 4 cards from all of his decks. The mulligan decisions is a BS argument if you've played cantrippy decks in other formats or even accept that you play 4 Brainstorm in practically every blue deck.

[dicemanx]

I’m not sure that this premise is acceptable, apart from the overbroad phrasing.

I really can’t point to anyone in mainstream magic or really even here that says that Vintage is too luck based.   I haven’t heard that claim articulated very often at all (and mostly before 2003), certainly not enough to say that it is common misconception about vintage.   I’ve heard many related, but non-coterminous claims.  It seems to me that you may be conflating this claim with others.  I have heard you voice this concern before, but I don’t think that that is enough to really say that this is a common misconception about vintage.   

I'm surprised to read this, because based on what I've read and heard the perceived luck factor seems to be exactly the problem. That vintage games are "too fast" isn't by itself enough to discourage players from entry into vintage - indeed, games may be short in terms of turns but not in terms of interactivity or the number of in-game decisions or total number of plays, which might even rival the number of plays you get to make in a Standard or Extended game. The problem seems to stem from the notion that games are decided quickly based on who draws their broken cards first - in other words, there's a minimization of the element of skill if the power of the cards are doing the winning for you.

In addition, I’m not sure it really is a misconception to say that Vintage is inaccessible.   I think the barriers to entry are formidable and substantial.    Vintage cards are far more expensive than in any other format.

There is certainly a misconception, because most prospective players don't consider barriers to entry as they compare to other formats; barriers are relative, not absolute. When it comes to Standard their wallets might be open, but for some reason once the costs of vintage are examined, they turn into penny pinching scrooges. The concept of returns on your investment card-valuewise also rarely enters the picture, because playing most non-Eternal formats will likely result in a loss unless we're dealing with a savvy dealer or trader.

I remember reading a piece by Mike Flores where he said that in other formats deck design is 80%, but in vintage it is 99%.   I may be misquoting, but that was my recollection.

That's not a positive comment about vintage. Deckbuilding options are finite, and there is a very high barrier of entry for any new archetype into the competitive arena. Furthermore, the more time passes, the narrower the options become, until we get infusions of cards that will push away from interactivity even further. A statistic of 80% in Standard is perfectly acceptable when the format keeps undergoing a massive upheaval every 3-4 months; we don't have that in vintage.

If you think that the two major misperceptions about vintage are that it is too luck based and that it is too inaccessible, then it would seem that you don’t think that the view of Vintage as too fast is a misconception.  But here you suggest that you think it is.   Which is it?   

To prospective players, the format would be perceived as too luck based to bother with. For the current players, increasing the speed and lessening the interactivity reduces the importance of playskill and puts more emphasis on deckbuilding skill and metagaming. We don't need to unnecessarily limit ourselves like this, especially since infusion of new cards into vintage occurs at a snail's pace, there is a finite number of possible archetypes, and with each passing day we increase the barriers of entry for new decks, unless we get an infusion of terribly broken mechanics or fast combo enablers. You don't seem to be overly bothered by this, but that doesn't mean that others don't share your lack of concern.

I honestly don’t know if people “relish” the direction the format is heading or not.   But, as I’ve said this many times, but the goal has never been to maximize the number of Vintage players.

According to whom? I'd like to think the exact opposite. There is periodic turnover in vintage, so it is important that we continue recruitment of fresh blood and sell our format to prospective players. If you think that accessibility and the small number of available cards in the format are barriers, we should remember that no one decreed that the proxy number cannot exceed 10.

If the goal was simply to maximize the number of Vintage players, one could arguably achieve that by restricting and banning things until burn and Keeper were the two best decks.

Ah, if only it was that simple. WotC is in control of B/R decisions, not us, and they don't have much vested interest in making vintage attractive to prospective players. That they periodically ensure that the existing player pool is kept happy is done out of respect for a portion of its (former) customer base, but the onus largely falls on us to sell this format and recruit new players.

Plus, you keep returning to your absolute arguments; why is it that the restrictions have to be so drastic for such a goal to be achieved? Like you said, the attractive part of the format is the brokenness and fast pace that it offers. The argument, however, is that the format is unacceptably fast. You wouldn't have much difficulty in understanding the need to restrict to 1 Lotus if 4 Black Lotuses were legal, and you likewise wouldn't be suggesting that you would need to take a machete to the format if 4 Lotuses were legal. You can preserve the attractive part of vintage without going overboard with the B/R list once you deem that the format has exceeded some threshhold of acceptability in terms of speed or degree of interactivity.

In other words, we want fast, just not too fast. We accept a funneling of playskill into deckbuilding skill relative to other formats because our format is defined by design errors, so long as it isn't funneled too much. We had the EXACT same difference of opinions when discussing the restriction of Trinisphere.

The goal is to achieve and maintain competitive balance and a healthy diversity of decks, and ensure that skill matters.   All three of these goals seem to be well sustained right now.

You mean the way playskill is going to matter when we show up to events and get our clocks cleaned on turn 2 by Ichorid or Pact protected binary combo despite running the appropriate disruption to stop such decks? All the playskill in the world isn't going to transport such cards in the library to your hand; you better hope that you will have sufficient resources in hand to survive or outcombo. This is the same as arguing that having a Wasteland or FoW against a first turn Trinisphere somehow translates into a demonstration of skill. Instead, it is defined as forced adaptation that narrows deckbuilding options and places a greater premium on luck to be able to have enough resources to deal with turn 1-2 game-ending threats. Maybe you believe that the skill involved in deckbuilding will compensate, but as I said before, enjoyment derived from this will be fleeting. This is reminiscent of the great combo purge in extended; prior to the bannings, you could likewise argue that there was "format balance" even though the combo decks could win ridiculously fast and greatly limited player interactivity.

[Smmenen]

I’m not sure that this premise is acceptable, apart from the overbroad phrasing.

I really can’t point to anyone in mainstream magic or really even here that says that Vintage is too luck based.   I haven’t heard that claim articulated very often at all (and mostly before 2003), certainly not enough to say that it is common misconception about vintage.   I’ve heard many related, but non-coterminous claims.  It seems to me that you may be conflating this claim with others.  I have heard you voice this concern before, but I don’t think that that is enough to really say that this is a common misconception about vintage.   

I'm surprised to read this, because based on what I've read and heard the perceived luck factor seems to be exactly the problem. That vintage games are "too fast" isn't by itself enough to discourage players from entry into vintage - indeed, games may be short in terms of turns but not in terms of interactivity or the number of in-game decisions or total number of plays, which might even rival the number of plays you get to make in a Standard or Extended game. The problem seems to stem from the notion that games are decided quickly based on who draws their broken cards first - in other words, there's a minimization of the element of skill if the power of the cards are doing the winning for you.

It's sort of funny that we are in general agreement with regard to much of this.  I agree with you that the fact that vintage games are fast does not limit the interactivity or the number of in-game decisions or even total number of plays.   However, I think you are ignoring the importance of "feel."   

I have heard, countless times now, how Legacy doesn't even "feel" like magic, let alone Vintage.   To most non-Vintage players (whom I increasingly associate), it has nothing to do with luck, so much as the sheer feel of Vintage that distinguishes it.  This feeling is in part speed and in part brokeness (of course the two are related).   

Not once have I heard a pro say that Vintage is too luck based.   The pro criticism of Vintage is more in line with what Flores said - that deck construction is the primary skill and that in game play decisions don't leave good players with as much room to outplay their opponents.   In other words, you don't have as many opportunities to take what would normally be a loss into a win.   That has nothing to do with "luck" as much as it does deck selection, proper metagame, good sbing, deck tweaking, tactical mulliganing, etc.   

I really think you are way off base in thinking that there is a general perception of Vintage as a luck format.   I don't think that is the case at all.   

On the contrary, the rise of the SCG events has really dispelled the notion that Vintage is luck based.   The consistent performance of so many players has really fostered and bred acceptance of the idea that Vintage truly is a sklll based format.   A silly skill based format, but skill based nonetheless.

As I said, the criticism of Vintage has more to do with the general feel rather than any criticism regarding luck.   One only need point to Robert Vroman and any claim that Vintage is luck based disappears "like evil spirits at dawn of day."

In addition, I’m not sure it really is a misconception to say that Vintage is inaccessible.   I think the barriers to entry are formidable and substantial.    Vintage cards are far more expensive than in any other format.

There is certainly a misconception, because most prospective players don't consider barriers to entry as they compare to other formats; barriers are relative, not absolute. When it comes to Standard their wallets might be open, but for some reason once the costs of vintage are examined, they turn into penny pinching scrooges. The concept of returns on your investment card-valuewise also rarely enters the picture, because playing most non-Eternal formats will likely result in a loss unless we're dealing with a savvy dealer or trader.

Peter, you are living in fantasy land if you think that the barriers to playing Vintage are mere perception.    It has nothing to do with any claim that I'm making an absolute claim.   When I say that Vintage is inaccessible, I do not mean that it is completely inaccessible.   The word inaccessible has within it a relative valence.   

The cost, imo, is only one part of the barrier to entry.   The incredibly strange nature of the vintage format and the incredibly detailed format knowledge required to perform are probably even more significant.   It's also not true that investment card-valuewise rarely enters the picture.

I would argue that one of the biggest problems for Vintage, if not the biggest, is the lack of organized tournament support.   Vintage was doing quite fine, but with SCG nonexistant so far this year and only one waterbury, why own cards?   

If someone asks me if they should buy power, I will straight up tell them "no."   There is no reason to own power in Vintage right now unless you want to compete (very badly) in the Vintage Championship, in which only one prize is relevant.   

I remember reading a piece by Mike Flores where he said that in other formats deck design is 80%, but in vintage it is 99%.   I may be misquoting, but that was my recollection.

That's not a positive comment about vintage. Deckbuilding options are finite, and there is a very high barrier of entry for any new archetype into the competitive arena. Furthermore, the more time passes, the narrower the options become, until we get infusions of cards that will push away from interactivity even further. A statistic of 80% in Standard is perfectly acceptable when the format keeps undergoing a massive upheaval every 3-4 months; we don't have that in vintage.

I hope you weren't construing my comment as a positive comment about Vintage.   On the contrary, it is very negative.

On the other hand, it is important to understand that I think your assessment of what the two biggest misconceptions about Vintage were are not at all accurate.   You claimed that the two biggest misconceptions about Vintage were that it was inaccessible and that it was too luck based.   I'm fairly confidant that your claim is wrong because it doesn't actually state what I think *are* the biggest misperceptions about Vintage.   Furthermore, your claim is wrong because neither of those are misperceptions.   The latter isn't a misperceptoin because no one really perceives that.   And the former isn't a misperception because it is actually true.   

If you think that the two major misperceptions about vintage are that it is too luck based and that it is too inaccessible, then it would seem that you don’t think that the view of Vintage as too fast is a misconception.  But here you suggest that you think it is.   Which is it?   

To prospective players, the format would be perceived as too luck based to bother with.
For the current players, increasing the speed and lessening the interactivity reduces the importance of playskill and puts more emphasis on deckbuilding skill and metagaming.

Peter, you just contradicted yourself.  Not a few paragraphs up you wrote that the speed of the format does not actually decrease the number of decisions and even total plays made per game compared to Standard, etc.   Yet now you are claiming that the speed of the format reduces interactivity and the importance of splay kill.  Which is it?   

Moreover, even if deckbuilding skill, sb skill, and other non-in-game play skill elements rise because of the speed, that does not at all mean that luck becomes more important.    It simply means that the deck you play is more important - which is not the same thing as luck.   

 We don't need to unnecessarily limit ourselves like this, especially since infusion of new cards into vintage occurs at a snail's pace, there is a finite number of possible archetypes, and with each passing day we increase the barriers of entry for new decks, unless we get an infusion of terribly broken mechanics or fast combo enablers. You don't seem to be overly bothered by this, but that doesn't mean that others don't share your lack of concern.

Because I don't see any evidence to  be concerned.   All of the tournament data - big tournament results - suggest a very healthy, very diverse, and very competitive metagame being won by great players.  Look at this: http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=vin&start_date=2007-01-14&end_date=2007-01-14

Pull up any major Vintage event in the last 6 months and argue that the results are strong evidence of an unhealthy format.   

We are seeing a great diversity of decks and archetypes.   

Furthermore, I think it is important to recognize that we ARE seeing great development in Vintage.   The Ichorid deck has just become a major player.   There are other new decks emerging on the edges. 

In fact, have you considered that part of the reason that development in Vintage is so slow right now has more to do with the tournament opportunities than with actually development being done?   Speaking for my team, I can tell you that as there are fewer opportunities to play in major tournaments, there are fewer reasons to develop or break out new decks.   

I asked Ray Robillard why he hasn't broken out new Belcher.  He said that he hasn't played it because he promised himself he'd keep playing Staxless Stax until he didn't top 8 with it.    When the best players continue to be successful with their decks and there aren't many events to compete, it isn't surprising that Vintage development slows.    I don't think it has anything to do with objective development of the format so much as the fact that there are fewer incentives and opportunities to experiment at the moment.

I think Vintage is, aside from the sparse tournament scene, very healthy right now.    But by all means, try to show me tournament evidence to the contrary.  Your claims that the Vintage metagame is all Gifts/Long is not at all supported by tournament data where a plethora of archetypes continue to perform. 

I honestly don’t know if people “relish” the direction the format is heading or not.   But, as I’ve said this many times, but the goal has never been to maximize the number of Vintage players.

According to whom? I'd like to think the exact opposite.

According to the logic of the counterexample.

The counterexample method works like this:   Take a statement.  Find a counter-example.  In logic, that's called the counterexample method and a valid way for rejecting an argument or disproving a statement.

Here is how it works:

All humans are omnivores - they eat vegetables and meat.
Counterexample: Sara is a vegetarian - she doesn't eat meat.

The statement above it is clearly false.   

Take your statement.  I said that the goal in Vintage is not to maximize the number of players.  You said you think exactly the opposite.   Therefore, we can rewrite your statement to say:
The Goal of Vintage is to Maximize the Number of Players.

That is clearly not the case because if it were then the policy decisions of the DCI and of the community as we support the DCI would be aiming at maximizing the number of players.    To maximize the number of players, you would want to make the cheapest possible deck the best possible deck.    I would contend that if we could make Sligh the best deck, then we would probably maximize the number of Vintage players.   But that would be silly.  No Vintage player would want sligh to be the best deck.   Neither Vintage policy nor the community truly want to pursue the goal of maximizing the number of Vintage players to their logical extreme.

That is *not* to say that we don't want to find ways of increasing the player base or that maximizing the number of players  iisn't one of several important goals, but it is never nor will it ever be our primary goal.

There is periodic turnover in vintage, so it is important that we continue recruitment of fresh blood and sell our format to prospective players. If you think that accessibility and the small number of available cards in the format are barriers, we should remember that no one decreed that the proxy number cannot exceed 10.

Agreed.   But I think the more serious barrier is frankly the skill barrier.   People who have no experience in Vintage can't begin to fathom the number of interactions they should consider.   

If the goal was simply to maximize the number of Vintage players, one could arguably achieve that by restricting and banning things until burn and Keeper were the two best decks.

Ah, if only it was that simple. WotC is in control of B/R decisions, not us, and they don't have much vested interest in making vintage attractive to prospective players. That they periodically ensure that the existing player pool is kept happy is done out of respect for a portion of its (former) customer base, but the onus largely falls on us to sell this format and recruit new players.

[/quote]

But the community isn't interested in making Sligh the best deck.   We play Vintage because we like to play with Black Lotus and cards of that ilk.   Making the cheapest deck the best deck is not what most Vintage players want.   Saying that the DCI controls B/R policy and not the community does not by itself support the contention that the goal is to maximize the player base.   

Plus, you keep returning to your absolute arguments; why is it that the restrictions have to be so drastic for such a goal to be achieved?

My argument was actually the rejection of an absolute argument.   I was arguing that the absolute goal of maximizing the player base is not the goal of Vintage (nor should it be).    I believe that there are many important considerations, only one of which is maximizing the player base.  I'm not quite sure how you construed that into an absolute argument.   

Like you said, the attractive part of the format is the brokenness and fast pace that it offers. The argument, however, is that the format is unacceptably fast. You wouldn't have much difficulty in understanding the need to restrict to 1 Lotus if 4 Black Lotuses were legal, and you likewise wouldn't be suggesting that you would need to take a machete to the format if 4 Lotuses were legal. You can preserve the attractive part of vintage without going overboard with the B/R list once you deem that the format has exceeded some threshhold of acceptability in terms of speed or degree of interactivity.

You can't actually do that if the goal of Vintage is to maximize the player base, as you suggested it should be with your statement to that effect.   Think about it: if the goal is to maximize the player base, then you can't compromise that goal with other goals.  I'm having trouble understanding why you are having trouble seeing this. 

The goal is to achieve and maintain competitive balance and a healthy diversity of decks, and ensure that skill matters.   All three of these goals seem to be well sustained right now.

You mean the way playskill is going to matter when we show up to events and get our clocks cleaned on turn 2 by Ichorid or Pact protected binary combo despite running the appropriate disruption to stop such decks? All the playskill in the world isn't going to transport such cards in the library to your hand;

Peter.  Have you ever heard of a circular argument?  You just made one.   You assume what you conclude.  Your assume an "appropriate" amount of disruption as a way to stopping such decks and then conclude that that amount is insufficient to stop those decks.  That's a false assumption.   You can always increase your disruption: are you running 4 Leyline and 4 Serum Powder in your SB? 

Does anyone have any other questions or comments about the article itself?

[policehq]

I'm surprised to see that you left out Magus of the Moon altogether, even if to say you think it's neat but won't make a big splash. It's seen some consideration since it was spoiled, and I think it is a great improvement to have a good effect on a creature.

-hq

[Jank Golem]

I’m not sure that this premise is acceptable, apart from the overbroad phrasing.

I really can’t point to anyone in mainstream magic or really even here that says that Vintage is too luck based.   I haven’t heard that claim articulated very often at all (and mostly before 2003), certainly not enough to say that it is common misconception about vintage.   I’ve heard many related, but non-coterminous claims.  It seems to me that you may be conflating this claim with others.  I have heard you voice this concern before, but I don’t think that that is enough to really say that this is a common misconception about vintage.   

I'm surprised to read this, because based on what I've read and heard the perceived luck factor seems to be exactly the problem. That vintage games are "too fast" isn't by itself enough to discourage players from entry into vintage - indeed, games may be short in terms of turns but not in terms of interactivity or the number of in-game decisions or total number of plays, which might even rival the number of plays you get to make in a Standard or Extended game. The problem seems to stem from the notion that games are decided quickly based on who draws their broken cards first - in other words, there's a minimization of the element of skill if the power of the cards are doing the winning for you.

It's sort of funny that we are in general agreement with regard to much of this.  I agree with you that the fact that vintage games are fast does not limit the interactivity or the number of in-game decisions or even total number of plays.   However, I think you are ignoring the importance of "feel."   

I have heard, countless times now, how Legacy doesn't even "feel" like magic, let alone Vintage.   To most non-Vintage players (whom I increasingly associate), it has nothing to do with luck, so much as the sheer feel of Vintage that distinguishes it.  This feeling is in part speed and in part brokeness (of course the two are related).   

Not once have I heard a pro say that Vintage is too luck based.   The pro criticism of Vintage is more in line with what Flores said - that deck construction is the primary skill and that in game play decisions don't leave good players with as much room to outplay their opponents.   In other words, you don't have as many opportunities to take what would normally be a loss into a win.   That has nothing to do with "luck" as much as it does deck selection, proper metagame, good sbing, deck tweaking, tactical mulliganing, etc.   

I really think you are way off base in thinking that there is a general perception of Vintage as a luck format.   I don't think that is the case at all.   

On the contrary, the rise of the SCG events has really dispelled the notion that Vintage is luck based.   The consistent performance of so many players has really fostered and bred acceptance of the idea that Vintage truly is a sklll based format.   A silly skill based format, but skill based nonetheless.

As I said, the criticism of Vintage has more to do with the general feel rather than any criticism regarding luck.   One only need point to Robert Vroman and any claim that Vintage is luck based disappears "like evil spirits at dawn of day."

If you ask the average member on mtgsalvation what Vintage is, they are going to say its a luck based, expensive, elitist, broken format where every deck kills on turn 1. This is obviously isn't true, but is sadly what people think.

[Wise]

I thought the article was great but it was basically


Future sight breaks ichorid

[dicemanx]

I really think you are way off base in thinking that there is a general perception of Vintage as a luck format.   I don't think that is the case at all.   

I don't understand how you can make the assessment that I am "way off base" when my statement comes drectly from comments that I read on other sites and the types of comments I hear people make in person. Is this all a figment of my imagination?

On the contrary, the rise of the SCG events has really dispelled the notion that Vintage is luck based.   The consistent performance of so many players has really fostered and bred acceptance of the idea that Vintage truly is a sklll based format.   A silly skill based format, but skill based nonetheless.

You're preaching to the choir. It isn't me you have to convince.

Peter, you are living in fantasy land if you think that the barriers to playing Vintage are mere perception.    It has nothing to do with any claim that I'm making an absolute claim.   When I say that Vintage is inaccessible, I do not mean that it is completely inaccessible.   The word inaccessible has within it a relative valence.   

Let's just put it this way - prospective players underestimate the accessibility, and they overestimate the luck component involved in vintage. Fair enough?

The cost, imo, is only one part of the barrier to entry.   The incredibly strange nature of the vintage format and the incredibly detailed format knowledge required to perform are probably even more significant.   It's also not true that investment card-valuewise rarely enters the picture.

What you describe can attract players, not repel them. Some relish the opportunity to enter such a complex format. I'm assuming we're not talking about "barrier to entry" as it relates to performing well.

I would argue that one of the biggest problems for Vintage, if not the biggest, is the lack of organized tournament support.   Vintage was doing quite fine, but with SCG nonexistant so far this year and only one waterbury, why own cards?   

It is a problem, sure, but one that has to do more with supporting an existing player base rather than recruitment of new players, which is the focus of our discussion. If you seek to recruit new players, it makes it that much attractive for tourney organizers to host events, doesn't it? You're to some extent putting the cart before the horse.

On the other hand, it is important to understand that I think your assessment of what the two biggest misconceptions about Vintage were are not at all accurate.   You claimed that the two biggest misconceptions about Vintage were that it was inaccessible and that it was too luck based.   I'm fairly confidant that your claim is wrong because it doesn't actually state what I think *are* the biggest misperceptions about Vintage.   Furthermore, your claim is wrong because neither of those are misperceptions.   The latter isn't a misperceptoin because no one really perceives that.   And the former isn't a misperception because it is actually true.

Steve, while I appreciate a good rebuttal, this isn't it. Stating that my claims are completely wrong without evidence to support your rebuttal isn't going to impress anyone. I'm not saying that you need to present evidence for every statement or counterargument that you make, but there is a difference between saying "I think you're wrong; here are what I feel are the two biggest misconceptions" versus "you are definitely wrong". The latter is a much stronger declarative that better be accompanied by evidence; the former is an opinion, much like the one I was offering in the first place. Just because you make very strong declaratives doesn't automatically make you more correct. 

I
Peter, you just contradicted yourself.  Not a few paragraphs up you wrote that the speed of the format does not actually decrease the number of decisions and even total plays made per game compared to Standard, etc.   Yet now you are claiming that the speed of the format reduces interactivity and the importance of splay kill.  Which is it?   

My overall point is that yesterday's misconceptions are becoming today's reality. The format was perceived as being too fast and luck based, when in fact that wasn't the case for the past few years at least. However, with the increasing strength and tourney performance of fast combo/control-combo, and with Future Sight looming on the horizon offering even better tools for fast combo decks, we are pushing the format towards even more reduced interactivity and games ending much sooner, thus placing much more emphasis on deck construction rather than playskill. For this to be a game involving a battle of wits at the tourney table, "playskill" cannot mostly involve being adept in accurately goldfishing Grimlong or Ichorid in 1-3 turns. That's boring. I also said that deck construction skill can only be rewarding for a brief period of time - once a list is made known, it is all too easy for others to imitate and for you to subesquently fall victim to your own hard work.

To sum up, I'm arguing about a transition and where we are heading, while you seem to think that the "before" and "after" are contradictory.

Moreover, even if deckbuilding skill, sb skill, and other non-in-game play skill elements rise because of the speed, that does not at all mean that luck becomes more important.    It simply means that the deck you play is more important - which is not the same thing as luck.   

You cannot predict a given match-up or even a given field with much precision; in fact, it a lot of metas, it becomes a futile exercise, especially when players won't be so accomodating as to play what is "best" and therefore predictable. If there is a greater emphasis placed on playing the "right" deck or the "right" build given the futility in trying to accurately determine what "best" actually is for a given event, then there is *certainly* a greater luck component involved in the game.

Because I don't see any evidence to  be concerned.   All of the tournament data - big tournament results - suggest a very healthy, very diverse, and very competitive metagame being won by great players.  Look at this: http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=vin&start_date=2007-01-14&end_date=2007-01-14

Pull up any major Vintage event in the last 6 months and argue that the results are strong evidence of an unhealthy format.   

We are seeing a great diversity of decks and archetypes.   

You don't have to quote me the data, because I've been poring over the SCG database for the last 15 months. It is pretty convincing what is actually dominating the t8s/t4s/t2s, and while it is certainly the case that there is a large variety of decks being played, it doesn't automatically indicate format balance; the "diversity", on the other hand, is very much artificial. How people select decks to play at vintage events can very easily mask underlying problems that will become more evident once the overall vintage technical playskill increases (so that many of the gross errors that pervade the tourney scene will start to disappear), and once people get frustrated playing their pet decks or individual archetypes against the Will/Tendrils-centric powerhouses that they will switch over to the Will/Tendrils side or even limit their attendance. Or, alternately, they will continue to serve as speed bumps or prize fund contributors and the rest of us can feel satisfied that our format is healthy because so many different decks get played.

In fact, have you considered that part of the reason that development in Vintage is so slow right now has more to do with the tournament opportunities than with actually development being done?   Speaking for my team, I can tell you that as there are fewer opportunities to play in major tournaments, there are fewer reasons to develop or break out new decks.   

Well, maybe the reason that there are fewer opportunities for you to play in events is because interest wanes when the format is rather unattractive because of diminished interactivity and because the format barely changes? There is such frequent turnover in standard and limited that its like playing a different game every 3-4 months, so things are kept fresh and interesting. Vintage on the other hand experiences tweaks or variations on a theme, but at its core its really the same (top) decks abusing the same strategies (Will/Storm).

I asked Ray Robillard why he hasn't broken out new Belcher.  He said that he hasn't played it because he promised himself he'd keep playing Staxless Stax until he didn't top 8 with it.    When the best players continue to be successful with their decks and there aren't many events to compete, it isn't surprising that Vintage development slows.    I don't think it has anything to do with objective development of the format so much as the fact that there are fewer incentives and opportunities to experiment at the moment.

This is an unnecessarily narrow attempt to account for why vintage development slows. There could be a number of upstream contributing factors. The fact that this format is changing too slowly and presents very high barriers of entry to new decks (not players, but decks), and the fact that there are perceptions regarding accessibility and luck factor, potentially limits us to 600 players instead of 6000 or 60,000 in NA. As a consequence, organizing Vintage events isn't as attractive for a TO, even on some local scales. This in turn slows development even more because accoring to you, there isn't much of an incentive for the strong players in the format to continue to innovate. But then again, according to you, player recruitment isn't a "primary goal".

I think Vintage is, aside from the sparse tournament scene, very healthy right now.    But by all means, try to show me tournament evidence to the contrary.  Your claims that the Vintage metagame is all Gifts/Long is not at all supported by tournament data where a plethora of archetypes continue to perform. 

Those are NOT my claims at all. There is so much crap being played in tourneys that it easily supports the argument that the format is "diverse". However, diversity can come as a result of low technical playskill and player stubbornness when selecting decks or constructing decks, rather than be a reflection of format balance. This format is not balanced, but as I said the artificial diversity is blinding many to that fact.

In fact, it is more heavily distorted than it was before because of that imbalance, except that the distortion isn't sufficient to retain balance - in concrete terms, it appears that Will/Storm archetypes have an edge over everything else in the format, and the decks that need to break past that "barrier" are either faster/alternate combo (Ichorid, Belcher, or WGD), or mana/resource control decks (Fish, Stax). The performance of Fish and Stax is rather uninspiring, and playing more binary archetypes like Belcher or Ichorid is not exactly a pleasant option for the more skilled player because he unnecessarily exposes himself to complete annihilation at the hands of much weaker players.

I honestly don’t know if people “relish” the direction the format is heading or not.   But, as I’ve said this many times, but the goal has never been to maximize the number of Vintage players.

According to whom? I'd like to think the exact opposite.

According to the logic of the counterexample.

The counterexample method works like this:   Take a statement.  Find a counter-example.  In logic, that's called the counterexample method and a valid way for rejecting an argument or disproving a statement.

Here is how it works:

All humans are omnivores - they eat vegetables and meat.
Counterexample: Sara is a vegetarian - she doesn't eat meat.

The statement above it is clearly false.   

The counterexample method fails when not dealing with absolute declaratives. The entire counter in your example hinges on the word "all" in the statement "all humans are omnivores". Likewise, your counterexample method would only apply if I made the contention that recruitment of new players was the "only" goal.

Take your statement.  I said that the goal in Vintage is not to maximize the number of players.  You said you think exactly the opposite.   Therefore, we can rewrite your statement to say:
The Goal of Vintage is to Maximize the Number of Players.

Note that such statement doesn't automatically have to preclude the possibility of other goals, nor does it indicate that it is a primary goal. It would be therefore better phrased as:

"A very important goal in vintage is to maximize the number of players".

Whether it is a primary goal is arguable, but I would argue that it does contribute to the overall, primary goal (something I expand on below). Note that there is a difference between stating that this is the "primary" goal versus the "only" goal. Only the latter can be challenged by the counterexample method.

That is clearly not the case because if it were then the policy decisions of the DCI and of the community as we support the DCI would be aiming at maximizing the number of players.
[/quote]

The DCI/WotC doesn't care one lick about expanding the vintage community or player base. You are making empty/misleading connections - we, as an existing community might support the DCI decisions as they pertain to rules of the game, errata, or the B/R list, but we certainly don't show support for their (non)efforts when it comes to building the player base. In fact, the acceptance of proxies was in direct defiance of DCI rules for sanctioned events precisely
in the interest of attracting prospective players.

To maximize the number of players, you would want to make the cheapest possible deck the best possible deck.    I would contend that if we could make Sligh the best deck, then we would probably maximize the number of Vintage players.

Sorry, but again, you're being unnecessarily narrow to support your argument. Maximization of the number of players doesn't automatically mean making the cheapest deck the best possible deck. For one thing, few if any are complaining that vintage, or any format for that matter, shouldn't require any investment whatsoever, or should require only a token investment. Secondly, there is always a possibility on expanding the number of allowable proxies; if you think that it is too bothersome for some to have to deal with newer players with 20 proxies in their deck, perhaps those making such an argument can put things in perspective and see if they would feel the same way when they don't have very many events to play in.

But that would be silly.  No Vintage player would want sligh to be the best deck.   Neither Vintage policy nor the community truly want to pursue the goal of maximizing the number of Vintage players to their logical extreme.

You call your own solution silly, and I'm in agreement; I would not support any decisions to make Sligh the best vintage deck. This is tied into how you inserted "to their logical extreme" - another indicator that you deal too much with extremes. I already mentioned in a previous post that you don't have to take a machete to the format when dealing with a format that has overstepped a threshhold of acceptability in terms of speed and in-game luck components, and this applies to cost to enter and compete in T1 as well.

That is *not* to say that we don't want to find ways of increasing the player base or that maximizing the number of players  iisn't one of several important goals, but it is never nor will it ever be our primary goal.

Format survival/existence is always the primary goal, and the recruitment is always going to be an integral part of that goal, as is maintaining current player interest to maximize retention. Ensuring that you have format balance, maximized (true) diversity, and a significant playskill component are means to achieve that end. Focusing on "format balance" as a primary goal is shutting out the big picture here; in and of itself format balance is meaningless.


 

Like you said, the attractive part of the format is the brokenness and fast pace that it offers. The argument, however, is that the format is unacceptably fast. You wouldn't have much difficulty in understanding the need to restrict to 1 Lotus if 4 Black Lotuses were legal, and you likewise wouldn't be suggesting that you would need to take a machete to the format if 4 Lotuses were legal. You can preserve the attractive part of vintage without going overboard with the B/R list once you deem that the format has exceeded some threshhold of acceptability in terms of speed or degree of interactivity.

You can't actually do that if the goal of Vintage is to maximize the player base, as you suggested it should be with your statement to that effect.   Think about it: if the goal is to maximize the player base, then you can't compromise that goal with other goals.  I'm having trouble understanding why you are having trouble seeing this. 

Vintage is a balance between the brokenness that the format offers while trying to put acceptable limits on speed, luck, and increase diversity. I am certainly not suggesting that elimination of the brokenness component will result in maximizing player recruitment and increase existing player retention; instead the optimal place to be is at an equilibrium, at a balance point, NOT at an extreme!

The goal is to achieve and maintain competitive balance and a healthy diversity of decks, and ensure that skill matters.   All three of these goals seem to be well sustained right now.

You mean the way playskill is going to matter when we show up to events and get our clocks cleaned on turn 2 by Ichorid or Pact protected binary combo despite running the appropriate disruption to stop such decks? All the playskill in the world isn't going to transport such cards in the library to your hand;

Peter.  Have you ever heard of a circular argument?  You just made one.   You assume what you conclude.  Your assume an "appropriate" amount of disruption as a way to stopping such decks and then conclude that that amount is insufficient to stop those decks.  That's a false assumption.   You can always increase your disruption: are you running 4 Leyline and 4 Serum Powder in your SB? 

Again, you're dealing with extremes. "Appropriate disruption" means that you have a reasonable chance at stopping your opponent, rather than it being an absolute certainty. It is therefore possible to have "appropriate disruption" that in a given game or match is "insufficient". This cannot be solved by increasing the disruption count to make it "sufficient", because then it might be deemed "inappropriate" with respect to the entire meta or with respect to your own strategic goals (the caving in to "fear" that your past Ichorid article rerferenced).

In other words, my point was: the games reduce more to a game of chance rather than skill. How fun is it to know that your deck has a 60% chance to stop a fast binary archetype based on disruption that you elected to run, but you cannot draw or mulligan into the relevant disruption thus getting your "clock cleaned"? In other words, you skillfully predicted that you'll be facing some Ichorid decks in the event, added some appropriate disruption cards without going so overboard that you lose to everything else, and yet still get massacred because you cannot draw into your key cards. In other words, the skill component to such games is too much associated with deck construction and metagaming; what actually happens in the game itself can too often get beyond your control when the opposing decks don't offer much room for error (ie they'll kill you inside of 2-3 turns). You're not so much as playing a game as you are looking at your opening 7 and hoping that the percentages you conceived duing construction will assist you in winning the match.

[jcb193]

You mean the way playskill is going to matter when we show up to events and get our clocks cleaned on turn 2 by Ichorid or Pact protected binary combo despite running the appropriate disruption to stop such decks? All the playskill in the world isn't going to transport such cards in the library to your hand; you better hope that you will have sufficient resources in hand to survive or outcombo. This is the same as arguing that having a Wasteland or FoW against a first turn Trinisphere somehow translates into a demonstration of skill. Instead, it is defined as forced adaptation that narrows deckbuilding options and places a greater premium on luck to be able to have enough resources to deal with turn 1-2 game-ending threats. Maybe you believe that the skill involved in deckbuilding will compensate, but as I said before, enjoyment derived from this will be fleeting. This is reminiscent of the great combo purge in extended; prior to the bannings, you could likewise argue that there was "format balance" even though the combo decks could win ridiculously fast and greatly limited player interactivity.

I agree with your point.  If the above statement is true, we might as well be playing poker. 

[Smmenen]

I really think you are way off base in thinking that there is a general perception of Vintage as a luck format.   I don't think that is the case at all.   

I don't understand how you can make the assessment that I am "way off base" when my statement comes drectly from comments that I read on other sites and the types of comments I hear people make in person. Is this all a figment of my imagination?

First of all, we need to be clear about context.    My assessment that you are “way off base” stems pretty much directly from your contention that this is one of the two biggest misconceptions about Vintage.   If your claim was simply that this was a comment sometimes made about Vintage, I would have little to support my view that your statement is false.   I have heard that comment before, several times in the last year alone.   

That said, that comment is far down on the list of common Vintage misconceptions, far below the threshold necessary to characterize it as a “general” misconception.   Perhaps it would be helpful if you could point to some people who make that claim?   

As a side but related note, I was reviewing some feedback to some of my older articles, and I remember Pete Hoefling wrote a long comment in response to my Doomsday report from SCG Chicago in 2004 in which he said that I was dispelling the notion that Vintage was a luck based format by making three consecutive top 8s with three different decks (Mono blue at the Vintage Champs, Oath at SCG II, and Dday at SCG III).   

If people harbor this view of Vintage, it is one that is not often articulated.    I can’t remember the last time I saw someone on the mana drain, in a major thread, say that Vintage was luck based.   It just doesn’t happen very often.   

The most important point here is that you were contending that it was one of two biggest misconceptions about Vintage.  It may be a misconception about Vintage, but far, far, far from one of the biggest two. 

On the contrary, the rise of the SCG events has really dispelled the notion that Vintage is luck based.   The consistent performance of so many players has really fostered and bred acceptance of the idea that Vintage truly is a sklll based format.   A silly skill based format, but skill based nonetheless.

You're preaching to the choir. It isn't me you have to convince.

Peter:    I did not write that to convince you that Vintage is not luck based.   For some reason, you seem to think that I did.   If that was my purpose in writing that paragraph, it would have been completely irrelevant to the conversation.    Generally when constructing arguments, we try to include premises that are relevant to our conclusions.   The reason for including that paragraph was to provide reason to believe that the misconception of Vintage as luck based is not general or even one of two major misconceptions about Vintage.    The evidence for this is that there has been a change in the perception of Vintage over time.   Whereas this may have once been a common misconception about Vintage, it is very rarely uttered nowadays.   There are far more misconceptions espoused. 

Secondly, your comment seems to parallel the first reply to my original response to your first post.   You said: remember Stephen, that’s why they are misconceptions.   Similarly, I’m didn’t write that sentence to convince you of the truth of the assertion that Vintage is a skill based format.   As I explained in the paragraph above, if that was my intent, it would have been irrelevant to the conversation. 

Peter, you are living in fantasy land if you think that the barriers to playing Vintage are mere perception.    It has nothing to do with any claim that I'm making an absolute claim.   When I say that Vintage is inaccessible, I do not mean that it is completely inaccessible.   The word inaccessible has within it a relative valence.   

Let's just put it this way - prospective players underestimate the accessibility, and they overestimate the luck component involved in vintage. Fair enough?

That could very well be true, but again, it isn’t relevant.  The question is whether these are the biggest misconceptions of Vintage.   

The answer is no.    First of all, it isn’t that Vintage players overestimate the role of luck in magic.   Most MAGIC players (irrespective of format) overestimate the role of luck.   That’s because so many magic players are bad and attribute losses to luck.  That’s why there have been so many articles over the years on luck and why there is no such thing:
Pat Chapin on Luck: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/12632.html
Tiago Chan on Luck: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/13630.html
And there are many more.   

The cost, imo, is only one part of the barrier to entry.   The incredibly strange nature of the vintage format and the incredibly detailed format knowledge required to perform are probably even more significant.   It's also not true that investment card-valuewise rarely enters the picture.

What you describe can attract players, not repel them. Some relish the opportunity to enter such a complex format. I'm assuming we're not talking about "barrier to entry" as it relates to performing well.

The two are related.   Imagine you are a firm looking to enter a particular market.   Your prospective earnings will be an important determinant in whether you end up entering the market.  In magic terms, the amount of fun, success, and general utility you’ll derive from playing in Vintage will be factors that you use to decide whether to play Vintage.   
The knowledge of the format is related to the performance expectation.   

While it may be true that some players are attracted to a complex format (and that indeed is the allure of Vintage), clearly many more are turned off by it.    Most Vintage players that become successful at Vintage did so only after at least several tournaments of unsuccess.    I remember Dave Feinstein was a regular at the major NE tournaments for YEARS before he ever made a name for himself.   When I first met Andy Probasco and got to know him it was because of Type Four – in Vintage he was fairly unknown for a very long time.     

The incredible knowledge necessary to really perform at a high level is somewhat analogous to some incredibly long Final Fantasy game – you have to level up after hours and hours of experience points to really become good at Vintage.   

The sheer quantity of interactions, the incredible format knowledge, and diversity of decks are huge barriers to entry in Vintage.  You have to become familiar with rules interactions that aren’t ever touched in other formats.   You also have to learn how to play with mana drains AND against them.    That alone takes months of practice.   

To play Vintage you basically have to be conversant in all other aspects of magic so that you aren’t overwhelmed when you dive into Vintage.    I’ve tried my best to demystify it by writing extensively not only for SCG but MTG.com and Inquest as well. 

On the other hand, it is important to understand that I think your assessment of what the two biggest misconceptions about Vintage were are not at all accurate.   You claimed that the two biggest misconceptions about Vintage were that it was inaccessible and that it was too luck based.   I'm fairly confidant that your claim is wrong because it doesn't actually state what I think *are* the biggest misperceptions about Vintage.   Furthermore, your claim is wrong because neither of those are misperceptions.   The latter isn't a misperceptoin because no one really perceives that.   And the former isn't a misperception because it is actually true.

Steve, while I appreciate a good rebuttal, this isn't it. Stating that my claims are completely wrong without evidence to support your rebuttal isn't going to impress anyone. I'm not saying that you need to present evidence for every statement or counterargument that you make, but there is a difference between saying "I think you're wrong; here are what I feel are the two biggest misconceptions" versus "you are definitely wrong". The latter is a much stronger declarative that better be accompanied by evidence; the former is an opinion, much like the one I was offering in the first place. Just because you make very strong declaratives doesn't automatically make you more correct. 

Imagine this scenario:

You say:
Elephants are extinct.  The last one died two days ago.   
 
I said: Elephants are not extinct.    I saw one just today.   

Then imagine you omitted the support and quoted just the conclusion.  In other words: you quote the conclusion that Elephants are not extinct and then say that I need evidence to support my conclusions.  That’s exactly what you just did. 

What I was doing in the paragraph you quoted was summarizing what I had said throughout my post.  I could have reiterated many or all of the points I had made in support of my conclusion, but I thought that would be unnecessarily redundant.   

This post reiterates many of the reasons for the conclusions summarized in the quoted paragraph above, so I see no need to reiterate them.  I will simply point out that the support you seek is found throughout my posts in this thread.  If you would like, I can clearly link them up, but until specifically requested, doing so would seem to be a waste of time to even the casual reader who has probably picked up on many of them.

I
Peter, you just contradicted yourself.  Not a few paragraphs up you wrote that the speed of the format does not actually decrease the number of decisions and even total plays made per game compared to Standard, etc.   Yet now you are claiming that the speed of the format reduces interactivity and the importance of splay kill.  Which is it?   

My overall point is that yesterday's misconceptions are becoming today's reality.

I am somewhat aghast to hear you say that.   In general, isn’t it well agreed that overall points need to be generally obvious from the direction of the argument or explicitly stated?   If your overall point was yesterday’s misconceptions are becoming today’s reality, you need to say as much at the outset, otherwise you risk miscommunication. 

 The format was perceived as being too fast and luck based, when in fact that wasn't the case for the past few years at least. However, with the increasing strength and tourney performance of fast combo/control-combo, and with Future Sight looming on the horizon offering even better tools for fast combo decks, we are pushing the format towards even more reduced interactivity and games ending much sooner, thus placing much more emphasis on deck construction rather than playskill. For this to be a game involving a battle of wits at the tourney table, "playskill" cannot mostly involve being adept in accurately goldfishing Grimlong or Ichorid in 1-3 turns. That's boring. I also said that deck construction skill can only be rewarding for a brief period of time - once a list is made known, it is all too easy for others to imitate and for you to subesquently fall victim to your own hard work.

To sum up, I'm arguing about a transition and where we are heading, while you seem to think that the "before" and "after" are contradictory.

“Seem” to think?   From the way you had phrased things, it was in fact contradictory.   The two statements were explicitly inconsistent.   This explanation relieves the tension between the two statements, and was necessary to do so.   

Again, I’m going to say that the sky is not falling.   I think there are fundamental limits on the speed of the format and I honestly don’t think the format is really accelerating.   The format continues to be have a fundamental turn 2 with an average game length of roughly 4.6 turns.   This hasn’t changed much in the last year (since last May the format’s speed has remained almost entirely the same – remember 3 Grim Long’s in the last May’s SCG top 8).    Ichorid isn’t even one of the fastest decks.   

I also think you continue to make a general philosophical mistake.  You assume progression toward some particular end.   This is evident in your writings generally in this thread and elsewhere.   The reason I am not concerned while you are is that I see magic as perpetually dynamic.   There are too many forces constantly shifting and changing to keep things static.   

In a sense, your arguments strike me as very Malthusian.  Of course, Malthus was the man who predicted human overpopulation.   He thought that the human species would continue to grow and grow and eventually it would result in mass starvation.   He was a doomsday prognosticator in a sense.   What he failed to take into account was the dynamic forces that would eventually check human growth.   What we discovered in industrialized societies is that children are expensive and combined with contraceptives population growth actually reverses.  Thus Europe’s population has slowed and is greying.   

Similarly, magic is a very dynamic system.   You seem to attribute a single linearity on it, when a systems theory approach is probably the proper analytic lens.   

I fundamentally disagree with your overall assessment of the direction of Vintage, etc.   I’ll elaborate more on this throughout this post and in response to other comments you make, more direct responses. 

Moreover, even if deckbuilding skill, sb skill, and other non-in-game play skill elements rise because of the speed, that does not at all mean that luck becomes more important.    It simply means that the deck you play is more important - which is not the same thing as luck.   

You cannot predict a given match-up or even a given field with much precision; in fact, it a lot of metas, it becomes a futile exercise, especially when players won't be so accomodating as to play what is "best" and therefore predictable. If there is a greater emphasis placed on playing the "right" deck or the "right" build given the futility in trying to accurately determine what "best" actually is for a given event, then there is *certainly* a greater luck component involved in the game.

But even then, playing toward a random metagame is in fact a metagame decision. 

Because I don't see any evidence to  be concerned.   All of the tournament data - big tournament results - suggest a very healthy, very diverse, and very competitive metagame being won by great players.  Look at this: http://sales.starcitygames.com/deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=vin&start_date=2007-01-14&end_date=2007-01-14

Pull up any major Vintage event in the last 6 months and argue that the results are strong evidence of an unhealthy format.   

We are seeing a great diversity of decks and archetypes.   

You don't have to quote me the data, because I've been poring over the SCG database for the last 15 months. It is pretty convincing what is actually dominating the t8s/t4s/t2s,

As well then, you know that as a major writer on Vintage you know that I have also marshaled a lot of this data together. 

and while it is certainly the case that there is a large variety of decks being played, it doesn't automatically indicate format balance; the "diversity", on the other hand, is very much artificial.

I feel that this is the heart of your contention regarding the problems in Vintage.  And once again, it is very reminiscent of Thomas Malthus.   I think you beg the question and end up assuming what you conclude.    The artificiality is the assumption that ends up supporting your conclusion that Gifts/Long are the only decks worth playing.    I think you are wrong.    You are wrong for many reasons.   It isn’t an artificial diversity.   Other decks are in fact winning.   Second, even if everyone got great with Long and Gifts, other decks would still win for many reasons (one of which is that new decks could emerge and old decks can be tuned to beat them).   For instance, I’m fairly certain that there is really no good reason that Control Slaver isn’t one of the best decks in the format.  It is historical contingency, not objective fact.    Furthermore, the reason that Long and Gifts are so good is that we have put so much effort into making them good.  Similar effort with other archetypes could and would eventually offset the position of Gifts and Long.   

How people select decks to play at vintage events can very easily mask underlying problems that will become more evident once the overall vintage technical playskill increases (so that many of the gross errors that pervade the tourney scene will start to disappear), and once people get frustrated playing their pet decks or individual archetypes against the Will/Tendrils-centric powerhouses that they will switch over to the Will/Tendrils side or even limit their attendance. Or, alternately, they will continue to serve as speed bumps or prize fund contributors and the rest of us can feel satisfied that our format is healthy because so many different decks get played.

Most of what I said in response directly above applies, and more still.    You assume a linear progression when magic is a very dynamic system.  New cards, new decks, and changing preferences make for adjustments that do not follow linaer progression.   Just as important, you assume that there is an objective development when in fact that which has occurred is historically contingent.   Again, I cite the example of having developed MD Gifts when people were playing very different Gifts lists and you started a thread about the “ultimate or optimal” gifts list that didn’t account for any of those developments.   Moreover, it is possible that if not for some particular developments, Long decks as we know them may never have entered the format in a big way.   Similarly, Albert Kyle and his Ichorid lists may right now be languishing in obscurity had I not wrote a ton of articles on them in Jan (not many people were talking seriously about Ichorid before Jan – aside from the brief top 8 I made with Ichorid at SCG last March).   Again, and I’ve said this in other threads, I think you put your own narrative to the development of Vintage that reflects sort of a natural historical logic when there is none.  It actually reminds me a lot of the Marxist theory (in form) that says that there is an inevitable development to economic systems that have their own internal logic.   In fact, the progression is not objective, inevitable, nor natural –it’s historically contingent. 

I asked Ray Robillard why he hasn't broken out new Belcher.  He said that he hasn't played it because he promised himself he'd keep playing Staxless Stax until he didn't top 8 with it.    When the best players continue to be successful with their decks and there aren't many events to compete, it isn't surprising that Vintage development slows.    I don't think it has anything to do with objective development of the format so much as the fact that there are fewer incentives and opportunities to experiment at the moment.

This is an unnecessarily narrow attempt to account for why vintage development slows.

What!!? 

The paragraph you quote does two things: 1) describes an anecdote and then 2) cites a general conclusion that “I don’t think the slow development of Vintage has anything to do with the objective development of the format so much as the fact that there are fewer incentives and opportunities to experiment at the moment.”    That phrasing is broad and inclusive.  It’s the opposite of narrow.   And yet you label it unnecessarily narrow.  Now, if you were assuming that the anecdote was the reason for the slow development, then you were reading my conclusion or general point too narrowly.   

Generously read, all I was saying is that the incentive structure of Vintage right now is not conducive to development.    How is that unnecessarily narrow?   

I think Vintage is, aside from the sparse tournament scene, very healthy right now.    But by all means, try to show me tournament evidence to the contrary.  Your claims that the Vintage metagame is all Gifts/Long is not at all supported by tournament data where a plethora of archetypes continue to perform. 

Those are NOT my claims at all. There is so much crap being played in tourneys that it easily supports the argument that the format is "diverse". However, diversity can come as a result of low technical playskill and player stubbornness when selecting decks or constructing decks, rather than be a reflection of format balance. This format is not balanced, but as I said the artificial diversity is blinding many to that fact.

Why can’t diversity come from a multitude of factors?   That is, why can’t it come from both format balance as well as low technical playskill and player stubbornness?    You seem to be suggesting that it is one over the other.   

Most importantly, and once again, you assume what you conclude.    If you are so convinced that these other decks are not good and that there is an artificial diversity, Prove it.   I don’t believe it and I’m sure I’ve been over the data as much as you have.   

I honestly don’t know if people “relish” the direction the format is heading or not.   But, as I’ve said this many times, but the goal has never been to maximize the number of Vintage players.

According to whom? I'd like to think the exact opposite.

According to the logic of the counterexample.

The counterexample method works like this:   Take a statement.  Find a counter-example.  In logic, that's called the counterexample method and a valid way for rejecting an argument or disproving a statement.

Here is how it works:

All humans are omnivores - they eat vegetables and meat.
Counterexample: Sara is a vegetarian - she doesn't eat meat.

The statement above it is clearly false.   

The counterexample method fails when not dealing with absolute declaratives. The entire counter in your example hinges on the word "all" in the statement "all humans are omnivores". Likewise, your counterexample method would only apply if I made the contention that recruitment of new players was the "only" goal.

[/quote]

Except you did make an absolute declarative.    Your linguistic parsing of the sentence in question is absolutely wrong.   

I was *very* deliberate in writing:

as I’ve said this many times, but the goal has never been to maximize the number of Vintage players.

The reason I was so deliberate is that I’ve made this argument before in articles and on these boards.    Specifically, I made this argument in my article on Restricted list policy – that the goal of Vintage policy was not to maximize players, but that this was one of many competing goals.   

Your response was written in equal if not even more absolute terms:

According to whom? I'd like to think the exact opposite.

I’m sorry Peter, but I made a declarative sentence whose clear meaning was that the goal of Vintage has never been to maximize the number of Vintage players and your response was that you think the “exact opposite.”   

Thus, the counterexample method not only works, it is used quite effectively here.  Now, it may not have been your intent to claim that maximizing the player base is the goal of Vintage, but we can only infer intent from that which is before us.    There was no indication that you were intending to use language loosely.  I certainly was not.   

Take your statement.  I said that the goal in Vintage is not to maximize the number of players.  You said you think exactly the opposite.   Therefore, we can rewrite your statement to say:
The Goal of Vintage is to Maximize the Number of Players.

Note that such statement doesn't automatically have to preclude the possibility of other goals, nor does it indicate that it is a primary goal.

Actually, it does both.    If the goal of Vintage is to maximize the number of players, no other goal could possibly be construed as anything other than secondary.   

I agree with the notion that a goal of Vintage should be to maximize the number of players.   I doubt that any reasonable person could disagree with that statement.   If I had intended to write that it was not “a goal” of Vintage to do that then I would have written that instead of saying that “the goal of Vintage has never been to maximize the number of players.”    I was very deliberate in my phrasing.   

The goal is to achieve and maintain competitive balance and a healthy diversity of decks, and ensure that skill matters.   All three of these goals seem to be well sustained right now.

You mean the way playskill is going to matter when we show up to events and get our clocks cleaned on turn 2 by Ichorid or Pact protected binary combo despite running the appropriate disruption to stop such decks? All the playskill in the world isn't going to transport such cards in the library to your hand;

Peter.  Have you ever heard of a circular argument?  You just made one.   You assume what you conclude.  Your assume an "appropriate" amount of disruption as a way to stopping such decks and then conclude that that amount is insufficient to stop those decks.  That's a false assumption.   You can always increase your disruption: are you running 4 Leyline and 4 Serum Powder in your SB? 

Again, you're dealing with extremes. "Appropriate disruption" means that you have a reasonable chance at stopping your opponent, rather than it being an absolute certainty.

Speaking of extremes!   Your term “appropriate disruption” was syntactically ambiguous.   You have just interpreted in a manner that suits you, but was not rendered necessary or even obvious by the original phrasing.   In anything, you have just interpolated a meaning that I think is binary: you say that it means reasonable chance at stopping your opponent rather than an absolute certainty.    My response was not intended to suggest that you have an absolute certainty.  Indeed, Leyline + Serum Powder only gives you a 94% chance – far from a “certainty.”   Furthermore, there remains syntactical ambiguity.  What does “reasonable chance” mean?    I can only talk about some of the standards in law – but four major standards are: 1) reasonable suspicion, 2) probable cause, 3) preponderance of the evidence, and 4) beyond a reasonable doubt.    Probably cause and preponderance of the evidence are probably close to the same in that they are roughly over 50%.   Reasonable suspicion does not have to be over 50%.    Having a reasonable chance of defeating another deck, likewise, does not mean a 50% chance.   Thus, you could have a reasonable chance of winning the match and still have only a 40% chance.   

As a consequence, my original criticism still holds!   You assume what you conclude – this is a classic begging the question fallacy, which is why it turns on what is meant by “appropriate disruption.”  Note also that “appropriate” connotes a judgment that you made the right decision in addition to whatever denotation you ascribe to it.   

In my view, appropriate disruption, as you defined it, may not be good enough.   But, contrary to the binary you set up (reasonable chance v. absolute certainty), I would want something that gives me a better than 50% chance, without requiring that it be an absolute certainty.   

In other words, my point was: the games reduce more to a game of chance rather than skill. How fun is it to know that your deck has a 60% chance to stop a fast binary archetype based on disruption that you elected to run, but you cannot draw or mulligan into the relevant disruption thus getting your "clock cleaned"?

Getting unlucky does not make magic a game of chance.    You can lose a game and still win a match, and even if you lose a match, you have probability on your side in the long run.   If you consistently lose a match that statistics said you should win, then you probably have miscalculated the math.    It’s possible that you were testing against a player with a lower average skill level than your actual opponent.  For instance, playing Uba Stax against random dude is not going to give you the accurate match percentage of playing it against Vroman.  Same can be said for me and Grim Long, MD Gifts, and other decks.   

In other words, you skillfully predicted that you'll be facing some Ichorid decks in the event, added some appropriate disruption cards without going so overboard that you lose to everything else, and yet still get massacred because you cannot draw into your key cards. In other words, the skill component to such games is too much associated with deck construction and metagaming;

First of all, if appropriate disruption is something that just gives you a reasonable chance of winning, then you shouldn’t actually expect to win.   What you want is a probable chance to win, not simply a reasonable chance.    Secondly, your description of losing to being unlucky does not even remotely compel the conclusion that the skill component is too much associated with deck construction and metagame, although I have always contended (and you yourself seem to be implying with your assertion that it is unreasonable for people to not play Gifts/Long) that deck choice is the most important choice in Vintage.   

what actually happens in the game itself can too often get beyond your control when the opposing decks don't offer much room for error (ie they'll kill you inside of 2-3 turns). You're not so much as playing a game as you are looking at your opening 7 and hoping that the percentages you conceived duing construction will assist you in winning the match.

You mean, Magic is a game where you design and tune and play decks to play percentages and get small edges?   That’s how I play magic and always have.   I’m sorry you don’t like it that way.    You don’t play Stompy because it loses to everything.   Not all decks should be viable.    Some decks should lose to other decks.   If you are losing to certain decks no matter what you do, then switch decks as you think so many Fish, etc players should do.   

[Vegeta2711]

For instance, I’m fairly certain that there is really no good reason that Control Slaver isn’t one of the best decks in the format.

Cause it loses to pre-constructed decks with Null Rod ducktaped on somewhere? In all seriousness, once the metagame replaces all aggro, then I think that's no longer a concern. Until it is though, it has to be a serious concern for any longer tournament in the first few rounds.

Feel free to return back to the really long philosphy discussion now.

[Smmenen]

For instance, I’m fairly certain that there is really no good reason that Control Slaver isn’t one of the best decks in the format.

Cause it loses to pre-constructed decks with Null Rod ducktaped on somewhere? In all seriousness, once the metagame replaces all aggro, then I think that's no longer a concern. Until it is though, it has to be a serious concern for any longer tournament in the first few rounds.

Feel free to return back to the really long philosphy discussion now.

But that's always been the case.  I mean, if anything, Fish Null Rod Decks were more prevalent three years ago than today.   The height of UR FIsh was the height of Control Slaver's heyday.   Control Slaver won the 2004 Vintage Champs the same year that Marc Perez made his Eric Becker/ Tommy Kolowith like winning streak. 

[Prometheon]

You two are far too semantic. I mean Steve, seriously:

That is clearly not the case because if it were then the policy decisions of the DCI and of the community as we support the DCI would be aiming at maximizing the number of players.    To maximize the number of players, you would want to make the cheapest possible deck the best possible deck.    I would contend that if we could make Sligh the best deck, then we would probably maximize the number of Vintage players.   But that would be silly.  No Vintage player would want sligh to be the best deck.   Neither Vintage policy nor the community truly want to pursue the goal of maximizing the number of Vintage players to their logical extreme.

This is a ludicrous assumption. How do the viability of cheap decks and the popularity of a format correlate? Look at Standard during Ravager affinity, which was very cheap to build when compared to the alternatives. The format was loathed by a huge percentage of the player base, and attendance increased when it was destroyed with bannings. The player base would NOT increase to the highest possible degree if Sligh were the best deck, simply by virtue of what the established player base wishes to accomplish by playing vintage (things like broken plays, AR, Mana Drain, Workshop, and to some, Yawg Will.) This is no different than what the Standard community wished to accomplish by playing standard (not having to MD 16 slots of artifact removal and losing anyway, broken plays like Ravager + Disciple, etc.)

Rather than deconstruct the semantic and syntactical foundations of each other's arguments, why not address the actual points presented?

I love Vintage, but there is a potential danger that the games reach a point of limited interactivity. As decks become faster and faster, the potential for interaction (along with the cards seen by each player) can potentially decrease, leading to more and more "do you have the Force?" and "Do you SB 4 Leylines?" type questions. GIven the unpredictability of many metagames, and the incredible diversity of hate required to beat many different styles of extremely binary decks, the format degenerates into a game of "so what am I paired against?"

Imagine a metagame where turn 2 Ichorid, Meandeck Tendrils, and Belcher were all tier 1 (and with the tools they are being given, this is not very difficult to imagine.) What do you run? What do you SB? 4 Leylines are practically required against Ichorid, but don't do anything against Belcher or Tendrils. Pithing Needle and Null Rod are great against Belcher, but do very little against Tendrils (Needle) and Ichorid (Null Rod) no to mention most control decks (like Sllaver) fear Rod themselves. What's left in your board for Fish?

Furthermore, how important is your opening hand against Turn 2 Ichorid? Mull into leyline or probably lose defeats most elements of play skill required. The emphasis is placed more on card choices (choices made before sitting down to play) and opening hand/mulligan decisions than on actual decision making and interaction (and therefore opportunities to take advantage of skill differences between players as opposed to deck designers.) I'm not saying that Vintage is at this point, or that Ichorid is actually "that good," I'm just saying that it is a possibility that is sure to be examined by potential newcomers to the format, and it may or may not have real validity.

I'd like to try an experiment, actually, and perhaps Peter could let me know if he thinks it is a good idea. I contend that many Vintage games could be predicted by opening hands and the top cards of a player's library before the match was actually played out. There is a Lotus tournament in May which would be an excellent way to test this. It would require a lot of logistics to implement, but could supply a lot of interesting data:

Before every game begins, players write down their opening hands, and then write down the first 2 or 3 cards they draw (whether it be through natural draw phases, BS, Ancestral, whatever.) Then we examine this list of 7-11 cards for each player and see if we can deduce who should win based on the power of the hands alone, and irrespective of play skill. If we predict it with a very large accuracy rate, than perhaps the importance of the opening hand and hidden information (which therefore masks the ability for players to make statistically informed decisions a lot of the time) is too great. On the contrary, if it is difficult to predict the winner of the games based on opening hand "quality" (yes I understand this is a subjective term) then perhaps the format is more healthy than we would believe.

Something else I'd like to examine, and which would actually be very easy to implement, is the importance of going first. It's easy to do; when filling out the match slip (2-0 or 1-2 or whatever), simply put a check next to who won the coin flip. I think it would interesting data to examine.

Edit: An alternative that could provide even more data, but would probably be even more strongly opposed by players, would be posting full lists (including SB) along with the hands drawn.

[Dr. Sylvan]

This is entirely about Magic psychographics.

The real issue here is that what made Type One so cool for so long was that it seemed wide open for lots of crazy decks---i.e. Johnny's utopia. Johnny loves unlimited card pools because they let him express his creativity better or in more unique and less predictable ways.

Then enough Spikes made the ultra-lame combo and combo-control decks so good that Johnny couldn't come up with new ideas that had a chance. In other words, the questions "why not just kill with Tendrils?" and "why go to all that trouble when you could Just Win instead?" invalidate so many ideas that Johnny just can't lie to himself about his chances for winning with something unconventional. This leads to a reduction of fun, even though Spike can still be happy with all the complicated skill-testing options and lack of a single dominant deck.

The fact that every new release brings with it the risk that combo gets better, and very, very little chance that control can get anything to keep up, means things are perilous at best, and Johnny isn't interested. I know I'm not. Legacy is a better bet, but I'm sticking to casual for now.

[madmanmike25]

Does anyone have any other questions or comments about the article itself?

I'm surprised to see that you left out Magus of the Moon altogether, even if to say you think it's neat but won't make a big splash. It's seen some consideration since it was spoiled, and I think it is a great improvement to have a good effect on a creature.

-hq

Um....I think that qualifies as a comment, doesn't it?  It's a shame that this got lost in the argument about whose favorite flavor of icecream is the best.

Let me add to this:  Since Magus can be easily cast off moxen AND SSG, how do you think it will impact Vintage when played along with Wastelands and Stripmine?  I mean it is possible to see this on the first turn, but my guess is that it will most consistently come down on turn 2.  Thoughts?

[Smmenen]

Very little.   

Correctly, I and many others pushed to include a critical mass of basic lands in most decklists in response to the omnipresence of Trinisphere.   If anything, the increase in fetchlands and basics has only grown.     The Combo control decks and combo decks (pitch Long) have long been able to find fetchlands fast enough to find at least one basic and then have been able to use those basics to play cards like Brainstorm and Thrst and Gifts to find more basics.   

Equally important, these decks are stuffed to the brim with artifact acceleration like Lotus Petal, Black Lotus, mox Jet, mox Sapphire.    In fact, a common play with Gifts is to Gifts for a particular color of mana acceleration so that you can go off with Yawg Will.   

Just as important, Blood Moon doesn't actually prevent the use of the lands, it just turns them to mountains.   Blood Moon can't stop a player from generating a lot of storm and dropping Empty the Warrens, etc.   I think to be truly effective, you need turn one Blood Moon *on the play* as well as a Chalice.   Even then, it's a crapshoot.   You can easily imagine a player having a basic Island in their opening hand (most control decks run about 5).   Island into Brainstorm into another Island into  Merchant Scroll for Chain of Vapor and you're done. 

[Grand Inquisitor]

This is entirely about Magic psychographics...

This may be true, but the rest of your post implies a type of magic player that I don't think exists (at least not in large quantities).

T1 as it stands now has shed most of its real Johnny-type players.  There have been a few waves of migration(GAT, Storm, Trinisphere) that have gotten rid of most of the casual players in this format.  What remain may not be players with the commitment, intensity, and skill of the pro-tour, but do not be deceived, these are not casual players.

What Prometheon, Dicemanx, and others are talking about would be the equivalent of the worst periods in magic (Academy, Necro, Affinity), except the type 1 equivalent.  While T1 players do bitch a lot, the environment described here is something that magic players of all competitive stripes have rejected.  Why?

It's not that deck construction and mulligan decisions are not skill intensive and a significant part of the game, however, the majority of magic players hold value in player interaction of some sort.

[Smmenen]

You two are far too semantic. I mean Steve, seriously:

That is clearly not the case because if it were then the policy decisions of the DCI and of the community as we support the DCI would be aiming at maximizing the number of players.    To maximize the number of players, you would want to make the cheapest possible deck the best possible deck.    I would contend that if we could make Sligh the best deck, then we would probably maximize the number of Vintage players.   But that would be silly.  No Vintage player would want sligh to be the best deck.   Neither Vintage policy nor the community truly want to pursue the goal of maximizing the number of Vintage players to their logical extreme.

This is a ludicrous assumption. How do the viability of cheap decks and the popularity of a format correlate?

I think you miss the point.   My point was that the sole gole of Vintage cannot and has never been to maximize the player base.    Even if you could figure out (or get agreement) as to how to do that, you wouldn't implement that policy to the exclusion of all others (and to its logical extreme) because it would have consequences most Vintage players reject.   Maximizing the player base is one of several considerations.

In that vein, I provided an example based upon the assumption that making the cheapest decks the best would increase the popularity.  You argue that that is not true by citing to Standard.   

Look at Standard during Ravager affinity, which was very cheap to build when compared to the alternatives. The format was loathed by a huge percentage of the player base, and attendance increased when it was destroyed with bannings. The player base would NOT increase to the highest possible degree if Sligh were the best deck, simply by virtue of what the established player base wishes to accomplish by playing vintage (things like broken plays, AR, Mana Drain, Workshop, and to some, Yawg Will.) This is no different than what the Standard community wished to accomplish by playing standard (not having to MD 16 slots of artifact removal and losing anyway, broken plays like Ravager + Disciple, etc.)

However, I would say that that comparison is simply inapplicable.   Standard is the default magic format.   People are always going to play Standard not simply because of that fact, but also because it is widely supported in tournament.  most local tournaments are T2 as are States and Regionals.   A decrease in the number of Standard players during the era of Affinity is probably greater than the number of all Vintage players combined.   

The Vintage player base is not that large.  I don't see how it is implausible at ALL that the player base could be maximized if sligh were the best deck.   It might drive out 99% of the VIntage players existing today, but you don't think that the 100 to 150 players that normally attend an SCG, Waterbury, or the Vintage Champs couldn't easily be replaced by Sligh players?   I think so for sure.

Consider the first Vintage Champs - there were 188 players.   There were 25 sligh decks and 24 Keeper decks.    Next year, 150 players and no Sligh and no Keeper decks.   

The last SCG tournament?  Barely 50 players.

I am CERTAIN that there are 50 burn players who could manage to come to SCG Roanoke if Sligh were the best deck.   

Your comparison to Standard falls because there are only less than 200 consistent tournament Vintage players whereas there are thousands of standard players.   The entire Vintage player base could be maximized even if no Vintage player playing right now played.   

Even if I'm wrong, the overall point is that policy has never been solely motivated to maximize the number of players because it has absurd consequences.     

Rather than deconstruct the semantic and syntactical foundations of each other's arguments, why not address the actual points presented?

I did.   The point that Peter was making was a claim regarding the primary misconceptions of Vintage.   I don't agree with what he said.   

I love Vintage, but there is a potential danger that the games reach a point of limited interactivity.

I would hang particular emphasis on the word "potential."   I don't see that happening.    If it does, then the discussion can turn in that direction.  This is a thread for a set review.   Peter's questions, as originally posed, were not about the direction of the format, but about the perception that this set might foster or reinforce.   Those are very different questions.   If you want to ask if Vintage is becoming too non-interactive, start a thread for that topic.

[/quote]

[madmanmike25]

Thanks for answering.  After reading your response, it was funny to notice that your examples of how Magus *could* be disruptive was solely against Gifts decks. 

Let's not be rude and forget about those Workshop players that need to be disrupted as well.  I can see Magus screwing with Bazaar's and Shops quite easily.  Yeah, many Stax/Shop builds run red, but mostly for Welder.  They really wouldn't benefit from having only mountains.  Magus could really hose 4c/5c Stax imo.  I realize that Stax decks have been on the decline (screw u, EtW), but they are still out there.

Equally important, these decks are stuffed to the brim with artifact acceleration like Lotus Petal, Black Lotus, mox Jet, mox Sapphire.    In fact, a common play with Gifts is to Gifts for a particular color of mana acceleration so that you can go off with Yawg Will. 

Ok, I guess I should rephrase the question.  Do you still feel that Magus would have a minimal impact in a deck with 4 Wastelands, 4 Chalices, 3-4 Null Rods, and Stripmine?  It seems that kind of deck would almost build itself.  Btw, I don't approve of people taking out Wastes/Strip just because they run 4 Magus and some Blood Moons, they assume it will always see play which is incorrect.

Just as important, Blood Moon doesn't actually prevent the use of the lands, it just turns them to mountains. 

True.  The main lands Magus affects against Gifts are Delta, Strand, and Sea.  This effectively shuts off Black mana as I personally have not seen too many builds(recently) with a lone Swamp.

 Blood Moon can't stop a player from generating a lot of storm and dropping Empty the Warrens, etc.   

Very true.  This is only when they have artifact acceleration though.  This leads back to having a deck with Chalices and Rods in it.

I think Magus is very playable since we now have SSG.  It just has to be paired with the right disruption to be truly effective.  I don't think it will vastly impact Vintage, but I think it can make more than a 'little' splash.

[Prometheon]

Steve: thanks for addressing my post, but I feel your argument is still flawed.

My point was that the sole gole of Vintage cannot and has never been to maximize the player base. Even if you could figure out (or get agreement) as to how to do that, you wouldn't implement that policy to the exclusion of all others (and to its logical extreme) because it would have consequences most Vintage players reject.   Maximizing the player base is one of several considerations.

In that vein, I provided an example based upon the assumption that making the cheapest decks the best would increase the popularity.  You argue that that is not true by citing to Standard...

Standard is the default magic format.   People are always going to play Standard not simply because of that fact, but also because it is widely supported in tournament.  most local tournaments are T2 as are States and Regionals.   A decrease in the number of Standard players during the era of Affinity is probably greater than the number of all Vintage players combined.   

How does the number of standard players have anything to do with the affordability of a deck as it relates format popularity? You say T1 would be more popular if the cheapest deck was the best, and yet in standard, the format's popularity decreased dramatically when the cheapest deck was the best (Affinity.)

Even if I'm wrong, the overall point is that policy has never been solely motivated to maximize the number of players because it has absurd consequences.

Also, examining the parts of your post I bolded, I find that we are in agreement. I don't think the sole goal of Vintage should be to make the player base as large as possible, but I don't think anyone does. That statement is far too absolute. The SOLE goal? Really? To the exclusion of all others? I don't think anyone is arguing that, and this is a bit of a straw man. I don't think that you can deny that increasing the player base is in fact one of our goals, along with others like having a fun, "balanced" (whatever that means in T1) and skill-rewarding environment.

[Smmenen]

Even if I'm wrong, the overall point is that policy has never been solely motivated to maximize the number of players because it has absurd consequences.

Also, examining the parts of your post I bolded, I find that we are in agreement. I don't think the sole goal of Vintage should be to make the player base as large as possible, but I don't think anyone does. That statement is far too absolute. The SOLE goal? Really? To the exclusion of all others? I don't think anyone is arguing that, and this is a bit of a straw man. I don't think that you can deny that increasing the player base is in fact one of our goals, along with others like having a fun, "balanced" (whatever that means in T1) and skill-rewarding environment.

These two statements are logically equivalent:

1) The Policy Goal of Vintage is to Maximize the Player base.

2) The Sole Policy Goal of Vintage, to the exclusion of all others, is to maximize the player base.   

They both have exactly the same meaning.    The additional language in the second sentence make this clearer, but it doesn’t change the meaning.   

For instance, if I were to say:

The policy goal of Vintage is to maximize the player base.   This would be logically inconsistent with the statement: the policy goal of Vintage is to encourage player interaction.   Just as it is inconsistent to say: “All humans are omnivores” and then say “I am a vegetarian.”   

In my very first response to Peter I wrote:

I’ve said this many times, but the goal has never been to maximize the number of Vintage players.

Peter’s reply:

According to whom? I'd like to think the exact opposite.

The “exact opposite” of my statement is that maximizing the number of vintage players IS the goal of Vintage – contrary to your claim that no one is saying that.
 
Now, it is possible that he read my sentence in a way other than it was parsed or that he intended something less absolute than what he wrote.  But that isn’t me straw manning him.  Quite the contrary, that is providing a more generous reconstruction of his argument than it syntactically deserved.   

As a general rule of logical analysis, we should not provide a more expansive reconstruction of a person’s argument than is warranted.  The reason for this is that the critic of an argument winds up in a position where he or she is, in effect, building a new argument.  Critics of my writing are rarely that generous and when I criticize others they should not expect me to re-write what they say so that it is more plausible.