TheManaDrain.com
September 04, 2025, 06:27:58 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Revolutionizing Vintage: A Community With Authority  (Read 14859 times)
Matt
Post like a butterfly, Mod like a bee.
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 2297


King of the Jews!


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2008, 04:59:51 pm »

Quote
I don't think we should have to wait for players to be perturbed to discuss methods of by which better decisions can be made in the future. If there's room for improvement, why not strive for it? There are enough people that feel the recent wave of restrictions is very bizarre and without sound justification. I also never said that I was seeking to break from the DCI's B&R list today, or that such an action is warranted because of the recent restrictions. This thread was posed hypothetically, and there is no "dream panel" or blueprint for a plan. This was an idea that was posed in order to get some feedback from the community, above all else. It has been well received from both camps, and that's all I was asking for.
Okay, I apologize then - I was assuming most of those things about this discussion.
Logged

http://www.goodgamery.com/pmo/c025.GIF
----------------------
SpenceForHire2k7: Its unessisary
SpenceForHire2k7: only spelled right
SpenceForHire2k7: <= world english teach evar
----------------------
noitcelfeRmaeT
{Team Hindsight}
MuzzonoAmi
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 555


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2008, 05:02:50 pm »

I reiterate my question: what actual, specific, historical differences would we have seen between TMD-vintage and DCI-vintage, had we separated in, say, 2003?

Had the lists separated in 2003, I doubt that we would've seen Gifts or Brainstorm restricted. We almost certianly would've gotten Fact or Fiction unrestricted, and a more active discussion of LoA might've occured, especially if Gush had been unrestricted (which was unlikely). Flash would've been discussed, but I'm not sure what would've happened. Burning Wish wouldn't have been restricted(at least not immediately), and then there would've been an even more active discussion of banning Yawgmoth's Will. That discussion may have actually resulted in the card's banning, but I'd only put the chances for it  at <50%. Trinisphere may have survived longer than it did, but ultimately would've gotten the axe. Bazaar would've been more seriously discussed, but ultimately would've stayed where it is. As far as trivial and cosmetic changes, I have no idea, but they aren't important.

Most recently, Scroll and Gush may have been restricted, but probably just Scroll.

Quote
I don't think we should have to wait for players to be perturbed to discuss methods of by which better decisions can be made in the future. If there's room for improvement, why not strive for it? There are enough people that feel the recent wave of restrictions is very bizarre and without sound justification.

This is the key point. The one thing that the Vintage community has consistently asked for (really, the only thing) is a more consistent and transparent process. That's the most realistic result from community outcry, because Wizards knows what Steve keeps pointing out: we are (in general) their longer term customers with more (per capita) disposable income than their Standard, Extended, and FMN communities. They, if nothing else, want to keep us active in the secondary market, because they know that we'll keep buying new product as long as we feel like the community is being taken care of. The last thing the DCI wants for the Eternal formats is a splintering off the community into more of an unsanctioned body than it already is, which is exactly what a move like this would do. As such, they have to take points brought forward in these discussions seriously. So if nothing else, this is an important discussion to have, even if it doesn't result in a split.
Logged

Quote from: Matt
Zvi got 91st out of 178. Way to not make top HALF, you blowhard
Elric
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 213



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2008, 09:47:32 am »

Quote from: Elric
I'm curious about this- do you think that if the DCI and WotC were separate MtG would have a chance to be recognized as a mind sport on the level of Chess or Bridge?  I don't think it's the DCI and WotC being the same that's primarily holding MtG back.

MTG could easily be a mind sport AND still print new sets. The nearly static nature of Vintage and Legacy is quite adequate for mind sport status. Chess opening and ending theory moves about all the time - the rules may be static, but the sport certainly isn't, so there's no need for MTG to remain completely static. Shortening the print runs would certainly help (and MaRo said last week that fewer cards were being made from Shards of Alara onwards), but for mine, make the DCI more independent, and most of the complaints would be gone. That also means that B&R lists would be maintained by specialists which would also be a plus.

Chess isn't static, but the rules are static.  That's what counts.  If MtG had the same card pool and you simply changed the metagame and our understanding of that card pool, that would be a situation analogous to chess. 

Additionally, the idea that Vintage is "nearly static" is only true when thinking about it from a very short-term perspective.  Here's a comparison, the top 8 decks from Vintage Worlds 2003, and the last SCG.  If you had put down magic for 5 years, how well would you understand Vintage today? 
2003 worlds: http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/event/5456.html
Recent SCG: http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/deckshow.php?&t%5BC1%5D=vin&feedin=17
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.029 seconds with 16 queries.