Why oh why do people insist on building subpar?

[arctic79]

Okay, I don't mean to fan any flames but something has occured to me while reading the forums lately.  Why do players insist on posting sub par versions of decks in this forum.  Isn't that why there is an improvement forum?  It isn't because your ideas are bad, it is because they don't stack up to their sister decks utilizing the same engine but with more effecient win conditions.  I hate crapping on any idea but when you design a deck you have to take a step back and say "Is this really the best option?".
Innovation for Vintage is important and great, but calling a few card changes in the shell of an established deck is hardly innovative.  In the meantime think about putting your list in the improvement forum until such a time the deck becomes the best option.  I have posted decks on TMD and I have always put them in the Improvement section because I realize they are okay ideas but hardly the cream of the crop for their respective deck types.

Either way it's 2:30 am and I guess I have nothing better to do.

[Darkenslight]

IMO, the idea is that the Open forum is for those decks that simply need tweaking; in contrast, those decks that need testing and often major modifications, are those that go intothe Improvement forum.

Also, those 'sub-par' cards, as you put it, may be better suited to the person's play style.  More importantly, these may be the cards that workd the best in the testing of said decks; for example, the ELVES! deck cutrrently doing the rounds is tweakable, but not by much.  The current lists are close to optimal, and are built to suit the current playstyles of the pilot.

In contrast, someone trying to abuse Eureka! would almost undoubtedly belong in the Improvement Forum.

Make sense?

[Grand Inquisitor]

Why do players insist on posting sub par versions of decks in this forum

Without naming names, perhaps you can give an example of specific 'bad' decks or cards?  For example, something like Eureka! or to use a real example, show and tell, will sit unabused for numerous metagame cycles and then find its way into a viable deck.  Does this mean earlier posts where it didn't catch were bad?  Maybe, but maybe they were onto something and just didn't quite have the right matchups or maybe they couldn't find the last crucial slots to make the whole thing work.  The vast majority of stuff here gets thrown out half-baked (present company included).

To try an answer, the number one reason why things get posted anywhere on TMD that look funny is lack of testing.  There used to be a great article by an old timer (I think it was Eric Spinelli, but I don't know his handle) that basically just said to test until your hands shake...and then test some more.  I think that's advice we all could apply more often, but since this is really just a hobby, you may want to consider if it's better that people continue to throw out raw dough so long as it moves the conversation forward.

[zeus-online]

If people didn't play subpar decks, we'd never find new good decks, since most decks start out as pretty bad, and then get tweaked into a potential format killer.

Even great designers usually make alot of bad decks before they get to a genuinely good deck.

/Zeus

[Nehptis]

@ arctic:

It's really very simple.  Most people on TMD who post decks are players who have aspirations to be tournament champions, but are in fact casual play champions.  The real Tournament level deck innovation doesn't occur here.  It occurs on private Team boards.  Eventually those discussions make their way here.  Then TMDers innovate it further or take it in a direction that you might consider subpar.

[AmbivalentDuck]

I'll also point out that it's often unclear what the next 'big thing' is until it's won a tournament.  There have been many ideas that looked good on paper to *good* players in this forum over the years, and some ideas that looked very bad that caught on (ie. putting Mindslaver in a Drain deck).

I'll go ahead and name names for you:  Sharuum vs. Hellkite Oath

Everyone agrees that Tyrant lost its luster with the loss of Gush.  So, the question becomes whether you take the very likely 2nd Oath kill that Hellkite represents, or if you instead gamble on a 1st Oath lock (but not kill) via Sharuum.  Hellkite takes up way less space in the deck, Sharuum can end the game for combo the minute he gives you a Possessed Portal.

The point is, it's unclear to a large number of very good players which is actually better.  We're what...2 days into testing?  So far, we all agree if Sharuum doesn't do something relevant the minute he hits play, he's inferior to the 'sure thing' 2nd Oath kill.  We have plenty of relevant, though.  Possessed Portal locks your opponent out of the game, and you can Intuition/Vamp/etc to get Vault-Key onto the table.   Sure, it's a larger footprint *and* worse than Tidespout in its heyday, but we aren't in a 4 Gush meta.  We're living in a Vault-Key meta, we run the dominant combo of this 'era', and we run an engine that gives us extra opportunities to abuse it.

So the 'subpar' question becomes: They both kill on the 2nd Oath guaranteed-ish, is the possibility of a 1st Oath kill worth a larger footprint?  If you remain unconvinced and passionate about it, why not help us test?

[Mantis]

Because people like to lose.

To clarify, people actually like to hide behind an excuse why they lose. 'Hey, my deck was subpar that's why I lost', is actually something you hear a lot during tournaments. People also tend to attribute their losses to luck, one dumb mistake and the one I like most is 'Yeah, I didn't test this deck.' It's very hard for people to admit that the other guy/gall was just better at their beloved game and that's why they lost. Playing a subpar deck is a great excuse for not winning a tournament, so when the players go home they don't feel as bad.

Anyway, my explanation is a bit crappy, John F. Rizzo once wrote an article on this subject: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/2005_Stuck_In_The_Middle_With_Bruce.html. He explains this phenomenon quite nicely.

Other explanations to posed question could be that people LIKE to play their pet deck. They enjoy it much more than playing a deck somebody else did. Some people derive a lot more fun from deckbuilding than competitive play, the reason they attend to a tournament is to see how their deck stands up to everything else, not necessarily to win the whole thing. The only thing that personally annoys me to no end is people posting subpar decks in the Open Forum. Only post there if you have either results to back up your deck, amazing test results (and a lot of them too) or an amazing idea that everybody must know about.

[arctic79]

Because people like to lose.

Mantis seems to understand where I'm coming from.

@AmbivalentDuck

Yes the Sharuum deck is one of the offenders.  It belongs in the improvement board.  It has yet to prove it is better then a traditional Oath build, and just because it uses Oath does not mean it has an automatic placing in Oath discussions.  When people discuss Oath on this board they are 90% referring to established decks.

@Nephtis
I agree

There seems to be a rash of players smashing 2 decks into one under the pretense that one deck beats decks a-d, and the other deck beats decks d-f.  So obviously if you mash them together you will beat decks a-f. (I'm looking at TEZ Oath) Have these players never read an article by any of the established Magic Gurus about deck design? 
I ran a horrible deck last week at my local tourney based on Aether Snap + Dark Depths using a Gifts shell, I topped 4 with it but that doesn't mean the deck was good, I should have never made any cut with the deck (it was that Scrubtastic).  So would I now be in my rights to post that pile of cardboard on this board as a new Gifts build?  Hell no, it was a pile of crap and I got luckier (played smarter) then my opponents on that day.  But see what I did there, I recognized a pile of crap that I designed and stated as much, how hard was that.  Now if I wanted to pursue this deck as a viable tier 2 deck choice (I don't see how it could ever make tier 1), I would post it in the Improvement section. 

[Evol daN]

If people didn't play subpar decks, we'd never find new good decks, since most decks start out as pretty bad, and then get tweaked into a potential format killer.

Even great designers usually make alot of bad decks before they get to a genuinely good deck.

/Zeus

Exactly,

I remember testing against the first dredge deck, wait was Ichorid ever that good? .... I jest.

The original Dredge deck (the one I played about 8 games against one night on MWS) only had 1 Bazaar, a bunch of 1 drops, 8 dredgers, Bazzar tutors, and animates. It was HORRIBLE. The point though is that the idea got out there, testing made it tough, and it continues to push our metagame today.

That first Dredge deck was on MWS for a couple weeks before I EVER saw anything like it on TMD. That guy played games as his theory method. Other people prefer to attempt to stimulate discussion as a precursor, to theorize about effectiveness and optimalization before they send hours and brain tweaking hours of hand shaking testing. It is all in preference, I say both methods are necessary.

Though in general, I do agree. The open forum should remain limited to those decks that have been tested, at least to the point that discussion can be initiated with a fair amount of raw data to refine and debate. But, limited to decks that have won multiple tournaments? I think that is too extreme.

EvD

[meadbert]

If we limit discussion in the development forum to just those decks that have already top 8ed, then the development forum ceases to be a development forum and instead becomes more of a reporting forum.

If you just want to read about decks that are top 8ing then read the tournament results forum.

The development forum seems the appropriate place for decks that are under development.

[arctic79]

If we limit discussion in the development forum to just those decks that have already top 8ed, then the development forum ceases to be a development forum and instead becomes more of a reporting forum.

If you just want to read about decks that are top 8ing then read the tournament results forum.

The development forum seems the appropriate place for decks that are under development.

So.....the boards are redundant?  We have an open forum for serious vintage discussion, and an Imrovement forum for improving decks and game play.

@EvD
I did not mean to come off that extreme.   There are multiple Tier 1 decks that have limited wins in tournaments yet fair well enough to become an archtype, and warrant serious discussion.  But until some serious ground work is done on some decks by using tournament data and extensive testing on MWS and other sources, should that deck not be discussed in the Improvement forum? 

[vassago]

For some reason i feel compelled to reply to this thread( i dont know why). i hate to point fingers or come off as condenscending, but  however i think if you are complaining about subpar ideas in a development forum you might just be too arrogant to need to read it anyway.  dont get me wrong, but i think you may be missing the implications and purpose of the so called development.  we all know that results and facts help push this forward, but development can also refer to the thought process behind the strategies.  sometimes discussing the hypothetical "subpar" could lead you into better understanding of why it holds its place in "playability," or quite possibly allow you to revel into newer thoughts and ideas regarding the card(s) in question. i could be wrong, but i think this entire thread has been a giant waste of time, no offense OP.

[arctic79]

@Vassago
*PLEASE NOTE, THERE ARE 2 BOARDS ATTACHED TO THE DEVELOPMENT FORUM, 1 FOR IMPROVEMENT AND 1 FOR DISCUSSION*

Sorry for the all caps.
I have no problems with discussion of new ideas, but it is just that... discussion.  Deck lists for these "subpar" cards should be going in the Improvement forum.  There is also a hint of ignorance in these deck postings where the "designers" are implying that their deck is going to be the be all and end all.

[eightywpm]

Arctic, could you do all of us a favor and list the cards which you would not consider "subpar" versus the cards that are "on par" or "good enough" to go in the open forum?  I would love to see a list and dissect it.  The idea of what is "good enough" to go on one forum or another has always been a little gray for me.  I would much appreciate if you could clear it up for those of us who lack the ability to categorize all cards and decks the first time we see them on paper.

[nataz]

you realize that this thread belongs even less in this forum then the "subpar" oath thread.

Of course I can understand why you did this, after all more people will see your idea if you post it in the most read forum.

[JACO]

Okay, I don't mean to fan any flames but something has occured to me while reading the forums lately.  Why do players insist on posting sub par versions of decks in this forum...
...I hate crapping on any idea but when you design a deck you have to take a step back and say "Is this really the best option?"...
...Either way it's 2:30 am and I guess I have nothing better to do.

Obviously you really must have nothing better to do than conjure up this post.

As the original poster, why do YOU think people post "sub par version of decks," and design decks that "you have to take a step back and say 'Is this really the best option?'"

I'd suggest taking a look at a few of your own posts, for reference:
1) Discussion on Drain-fueled Painter's Servant:
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=35745.msg497887#msg497887
You post a decklist that by all accounts is "sub-par."
2) Your thread for your pet deck, Final Fantasy:
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=36514.msg507592#msg507592
Again, by all accounts this is a "sub-par" deck, and is "probably not the best option," regardless of whether or not it is your pet deck.
3) Your thread for your UB-Noughts' deck:
http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=36121.msg502534#msg502534
Once again, by all accounts a "sub par" deck, and is "probably not the best option."

So why did you design these decks like you did? Once you can look at your own work introspectively and objectively, and then answer this question, then you can probably look at the work of others and apply the same answers.

[arctic79]

JACO

I posted my decklists in the Improvement section except for one which was a mistake by me.  I realize that they are subpar and I have never touted them as better then any other deck list. 

I realize I'm a small, bitter man and something ticked me a the wrong way at 2 in the morning while I was pouring over posts.  I should have not poked the bear.  I'll leave it at that.

[LotusHead]

Some decks have no optimal build.  Say, Stax.  Does that bannish Stax to the Vintage Improvement forum? No.

All disscusions benefit somebody somewhere, as long as they are civil, and intelligently laid out, and TMD is where you can find some honest answers/critique.

That being said, perceptions of what is optimal and what is not vary from person to person, as any reader of the infamous Salavager threads of '04 can attest.

[Grand Inquisitor]

I should have not poked the bear

This is not the pattern I'd like to see.

Starting from an extremely limited opinion (mine) I asked what your opinion was of the tension between the 'established' metagame and content that should appear in this forum.  While it's easy to infer (from the rules posted and the tenor of the big responzors) that this place is run by mostly uptight grad students, that's only half true.  If you raise your bar for communicating, I think you'll be met in kind.  There remains lots of work to do organizationally, however, TMD has a VERY dedicated and intelligent group of locals.

My post was a counter point, but it also asked for more from you.  If you want, clarify your point.  There'll always be the ups and downs, but there's ample room for discussion.

[Juggernaut GO]

I won a 150 player waterbury with the most ridiculous untuned unoptimal piece of shit ever. no one even cared when the list got posted.


I think you're making something out of nothing

[JACO]

JACO

I posted my decklists in the Improvement section except for one which was a mistake by me.  I realize that they are subpar and I have never touted them as better then any other deck list. 

I realize I'm a small, bitter man and something ticked me a the wrong way at 2 in the morning while I was pouring over posts.  I should have not poked the bear.  I'll leave it at that.

The point of my post was that you see decks, which you might view as sub par, designed for a reason by their creator(s). Either the creator(s):
a) designed the deck with specific card choices to combat/exploit certain things they think they may face in their local tournaments, or have trouble with, or
b) are probably not the world's best deck designers when tightening down a few slots in their decks.

The "boards" in general are just a place to bounce ideas off one another, for the most part. Most often people would be better served just testing their deck ideas and configurations against stuff they expect to face, and see where their testing gets them.

[Shock Wave]

I won a 150 player waterbury with the most ridiculous untuned unoptimal piece of shit ever. no one even cared when the list got posted.


I think you're making something out of nothing

Just a note: There is a huge upside to playing a "suboptimal" deck, that being that it is very unnerving to know that a good player is playing something bizarre. I would much rather playing against a top player that is playing TPS or some other known deck than play against the same player who is using some bizarre concoction that I know nothing about.

I put suboptimal in quotations because I believe there is a very grey area between "different" and "suboptimal", that being "different" decks are still very capable of winning. I don't care how good a player is, you won't be able to give them a block deck to win a Vintage tournament with. However, if a player can take a deck and win tournaments or T8 with it consistently, it cannot be dismissed as a pile of trash.

Every deck I've ever played has been ridiculed and torn apart on these boards, but I've finished at the top tables of many large tournaments with them. I'm ok with people describing them as suboptimal, but I think that description lacks any context.

[chief]

I'll have to lump myself with shockwave on this one.

[Wagner]

I won a 150 player waterbury with the most ridiculous untuned unoptimal piece of shit ever. no one even cared when the list got posted.


I think you're making something out of nothing

Just a note: There is a huge upside to playing a "suboptimal" deck, that being that it is very unnerving to know that a good player is playing something bizarre. I would much rather playing against a top player that is playing TPS or some other known deck than play against the same player who is using some bizarre concoction that I know nothing about.

I put suboptimal in quotations because I believe there is a very grey area between "different" and "suboptimal", that being "different" decks are still very capable of winning. I don't care how good a player is, you won't be able to give them a block deck to win a Vintage tournament with. However, if a player can take a deck and win tournaments or T8 with it consistently, it cannot be dismissed as a pile of trash.

Every deck I've ever played has been ridiculed and torn apart on these boards, but I've finished at the top tables of many large tournaments with them. I'm ok with people describing them as suboptimal, but I think that description lacks any context.

Ditto.

Few new deck ideas are good, but if no one tried anything new, there would be no innovation. Some ideas catch on, others don't.

Quick example, when I introduced Bomberman to the US, it got ridiculed in countless ways and was even called a subpar control deck, a subpar combo deck as well as numerous other comparisons to many things. Now it is known and played worldwide (I'm pretty sure the same thing happened with Landstill and others).

With testing and tweaking, there is always a way to build better decks, that is why people are posting here.

[Demonic Attorney]

I put suboptimal in quotations because I believe there is a very grey area between "different" and "suboptimal", that being "different" decks are still very capable of winning. I don't care how good a player is, you won't be able to give them a block deck to win a Vintage tournament with. However, if a player can take a deck and win tournaments or T8 with it consistently, it cannot be dismissed as a pile of trash.

I think that, in turn, there is a grey area between "suboptimal" and "pile of trash."  Look at CS lists circa 2004.  Rich and I were running crap like 2x Cunning Wish for SB Mogg Salvage to remove Null Rod for the low, low price of 2U assuming we could keep a Volcanic Island in play.  Going back farther in time, CS ran Lightning Greaves mainboard to protect Goblin Welder, and Darksteel Citadel to provide a welder target that got around Gorilla Shaman.  I think I even had a list that ran Mirror Universe against mono red at one point.  This is not what I would consider to be an optimal build of CS by modern, or even relatively recent, standards.

Now, did our lists do well?  Yes.  So I think you're right in saying that even decks that are viewed as suboptimal can still perform.  But, I also believe that player skill, along with the level of refinement in opposing lists, played a large role in the deck doing well.  A well-tuned list won't win you tournaments on its own, but it plays into the equation that determines tournament outcomes.  I guess it all depends on how confident you are in being able to make up what you could lose in terms of deck refinement with what you could gain through player skill and advantages against other lists.  I know that for my part, I'll roll the dice on a "suboptimal" list every now and then, but I realize my skill alone won't get me there with something that is a "pile of trash."

[hauntedechos]

greetings vintage community.


I insist on building subpar because I am only allowed so many proxies.  I own no power and therefore proxy acceleration and then sub in suboptimal choices to make the deck work.

An example of this would be my current TPS list.  I have no Grims, so instead of going the tutor route, I sub in Night's Whispers to give me raw draw power.  The result is that I am able to dig into quantity instead of the quality cards.  The deck goes off turn 3 w/o fail and still wields the same number of control pieces to protect.  I've adapted my list and playstyle to that very fact and do quite well with the list.  Would I suggest TPS pro's with power to take my list to a tournament?  no.  If you have the means to build optimally, then by all means do so, if you don't then run what you can.

There are times that using "suboptimal" selections are later looked at as "on par" with current "optimal builds" from a different angle.  Can my TPS list execute Grim based lines of play? No.  However it can execute other lines of play which TPS cannot because it lacks Night's Whispers.  They are suboptimal and they are more Will based to be sure, however I don't know when I've ever had a Nights Whisper countered.  This falls inline with the idea that when a player brings a "known deck" to the table you can play against it from a known angle.  When that same deck starts doing things differently from "suboptimal" card choices, do you know how they are going to reach the finish line?  probly not. ie " I should counter that Grim" vs.  "what is he doing when he strings along a few Whispers" or "what the hell is DD doing in TPS"? etc.

As a last thought, sometimes building suboptimal can throw your opponent off enough to gain a slight advantage.  Its a benifit, however I doubt that it is the reason why someone builds suboptimal.  The concept of rogue is based on suboptimal selections in general.  However rogue has a purpose in that the deck is being built to beat a meta in specific.

Sorry that this post seems to just wander about, I guess I don't have a linear train of thought on this one.

Haunted.