[Free Article] So Many Insane Plays -- Reviving Vintage

[Smmenen]

Proxies are a positive good.  I am simply saying that we should be moving to a 5 proxy model, for all of the reasons contained in the article, rather than the 10, 15, or even 25 proxy model.  

If we truly want to understand what the Proxy limit should be then I think the best method of analysis is to take a "Free Market" approach.  I know that this isn't a popular topic right now with the US economy in a Recession.  But, here's the method:

1) TOs, should host Unlimited Proxy events for 3 months.  (In most cases this will be only 3 data points per TO.)
2) Ensure that every player registers a decklist with the total Number of Proxies identified.
3) Start a Topic on TMD for TOs to post results.

This is a very simple way to let the "free market" speak as to how many proxies it needs/wants.  Then based on this data a more informed decision can be rendered regarding "what to do next" from a Proxy tournament perspective.

That would completely fail to address the problems raised in the article.  The requirements for short term growth are not the same as long-term growth. 

[CHaPuZaS]

I think what needs to be found is a happy medium, so that players are encouraged to at least try to own a little bit of power.  I'm suggesting that we try changing the number of proxies to 7 or 8.  That way, players will still be able to run the otherwise inaccessible 3/4's of decks in the format, with the only detriment being that you might be missing one or two moxes.  It would be enough of a crutch to encourage the possession of some power without alienating people from their favorite archetypes.

That's exactly what we are doing in Spain, 3 of the 4 leagues still use proxyes, but we are Reducing it by steps. The attendance to our tournaments is very interesting, from 40 to 55 in each league once a month. The first year 2008, we accepted the use of 10 proxies, and for this 2009 we reduced it to 7. The attendance not only grew, but it continuosly use less proxys, as we study our tournaments, we get to see how many proxys are used...

I not only think this is a good step, but the correct one... What a better proof that the one that shows attendance growing? 

I have much more things to say than this one in about this article, but I don't have time now, I've got to work.

[chrissss]

FOREIGN CARDS
I provide 3 people with vintage staples so we effectively attend tourneys with 4 people. In my group, I am the one most informed on the meta, new cards and tech and what to play. My brother, who top 8'd 2 times in a row (his first 2 vintage tourneys), played against a french version of mana'd ichorid. He didn't understand breakthrough, narcomoeba, ichorid or golgari gravetroll because he has not actively followed magic and couldn't understand the french cards. This happened to me while  attending an extended tourney and played against a french Condescend.

We get extremely upset about foreign cards because asking a judge what a card does is not the same thing as interpreting the actual text. A judge isn't going to say "tap-sign, colon, exact text" and even if he does you just want to be able to read it. Seeing my brother lose to ichorid (his only loss in the first 6 rounds) just because he didn't know what the cards did and how to respond to them was so upsetting that I am contemplating abusing proxying to confuse my opponents. It gets even worst when people get on that whole japanese foil bandwagon.

These people are NEW to the format and do not know all the intricate mechanics that vintage, the format that holds the most daunting rules to comphrehend. If you want an accessible format, why allow cards that new players may not understand?

I agree completely about the whole Japaneese / foreign card rules. I had the same problem the other day, and even though I know the cards, It is little subtle words like Target, up to or 2, stuff like this people forget on cards, and this sucks. I wish they had different rules for this also, its stupid they don't allow certain cards, yet they allow foil cards ( which are so bend, you can spot one from a meter away) and foreign cards.

[Eastman]

I definitely support all of these suggestions. 

As a long-time player who owns only 1 piece of power, I have to say I completely agree that the high proxy limits discourage keeping power.  It used to be that people would debate 5-proxy builds of decks, and winning or acquiring even one piece was huge because it let you effectively have another piece of power in your deck.  I've sold off a ton of power myself, and the only piece I own I bought outright just because I wanted to have one. 

And there are ways to acquire/borrow power for no-proxy major events.  I have to again thank Jeff Anand for loaning me a full beta P9 set for about a year back in my heavy playing days!!

CE/IE cards are a no brainer, I'm in total agreement there.

Prizes for unpowered players are also smart.  They will consistently be given to a new entrant to the format and will significantly increase the chances that the person sticks around.  Good for building community. 

As far as these articles being premium, I understand as well that some people are concerned that it limits readership.  It's true that when we are discussing barriers to the format, having the most regular, high quality column on the format be unavailable to the uninitiated is itself one of those barriers.  But, aren't these articles available to everyone after some number of months?  One solution to this concern might be to shorten the amount of time that these articles are restricted reading. 

[DarkfnTemplar]

I skimmed over most of the posts, so forgive me for any redundancies.
As someone who came into vintage with no staples, no power, and no play skill (Well, that one is still true) while ending up doing well, I think I have some merit pertaining to this subject.
 It is true that the ability to use proxies wasn't exactly the congenital reason for my curiosity with vintage. However, I think that my interest would have been a quick flare rather than the burning passion I have for vintage without the ability to utilize them. Now that proxies have been used for many years, taking away that crutch wouldn't hurt me as much as it used to. However, the many vintage players would drop, and I mean MANY. This forum is a nice little group, but it is the random people who come to proxy tournaments that really make up the community we don't see as often on here. The solution isn't abolition, and I'm glad that you, Steve, agree.

 Furthermore, Benthetenor and Gunslinger are correct. We can't simplify these conditions on a multi-variable scale. I am actually ashamed of Ben Bleiweiss for his actions and his disgusting cover up. While his arguments have some some truth derived from them, he is forcing us to only see his non-sequitor syllogism. His motives aren't a surprise either. Where does he work and what does he do? Sell cards. So here lies the question:
Are we trying to raise attendance or are we trying to increase the prize value?

 As Steve has pointed out, these are not inherently the same, nor are they that different. Steve, I agree with many of your solutions. Holding more exclusive, low power count tournaments will indeed increase the utility/demand/price for power. However, I think that a healthy mix between the two would increase participation and value of power to the extended that these factors have power over. I think the best solution would be for more WOTC support. If WOTC could stir up some non-proxied tournaments (besides worlds) with decent prize support, I think a great thing would happen. People would play at SCG Power 9 to earn their proxies and then play at the big Wotc non-proxy events to earn cash and hopefully Pro-Points. Bottom line, we need better motivation for non-proxy if we want to complete this system.

 As for IE and CE, we need to be careful. I think that releasing these as playable is a great idea, but the effect on the secondary market might be completely different that what you guys are putting in a vacuum. Instead of lowering current power prices, it may have the exact opposite effect. While introducing substitutes into the market usually lowers price, real power has such a strong personal value to it. I think we will be greatly underestimating that in the future until it hits in the face.
 In conclusion, we shouldn't have an exclusive standard on proxy limit rules, especially since it is only one factor. Diversification is the best way to have as much utility as possible and we need to find ways to make that work. Different leagues should be created with different proxy limits, but limit the prizes. The less proxies you use, the greater the prize support should be. Whether that be in Pro-Points or cash, WOTC needs to get involved. We can't secede vintage as much as we wanted to in the past.

[TripleAgent]

I feel this article was very very interesting, as like vassago, I am the main driving force behind Vintage adoption in Baltimore. To be frank, without a high proxy count (20 currently), what I've accomplished so far would have been impossible. In what I guess is a combination of people just not being well off, economic conditions, and the sway of every other format (we have SCG not too far away and a semi major shop in southern MD that does PTQs and such, players are very stretched already), people flat out balked at Vintage until the proxy limit reached 20. Myself and one other player are responsible for about 6 people per tournament due to being the only people having the sort of collections (and pockets AND interest) to loan out that many decks/cards. My last event almost cracked 30 people, which I consider great starting from nothing. What does someone in my position do? Before answering, consider some other variables/thoughts:

1. Every event has been won by an out-of-towner (experienced players who take the power out of this community). We're just not that good yet, we're just starting...
2. Baltimore's job market/economy is less than great, recession or not. These people who are currently playing are most likely not going to invest in single cards over 50-100 USD EVER (just me and that other guy, and we struggle at buying power, I barely can afford my tourney prizes, I do it for love of the game). EDIT: One local guy has a set of P9, he's just richer than us, period. Do I give him an inherent advantage?
3. I could allow CE cards now, they would still be an ugly option because no one else does, so they're useless otherwise, and cost more than your average Standard chase rare that is instantly useful. Conversely, if they become the only option, what happens when CE Lotus becomes 500+ USD? Don't we end up in the same or close to same spot? I won't question Ben's motives or integrity, but if he and Pete go with this system, does anyone believe the new "proxies" won't suddenly see a massive markup? Not to mention Ebay gouging will ensue day one.
4. At say...10 or less proxies, I can see events turning into Fish/RG Beatz/Ichorid/That one guy with P9/out-of-towners with power that already beat us/maybe me if I save up metagame. IDK how long the scene will sustain that cluster...

I apologize if this isn't super well presented, I'm supposed to be working, lol, but I wanted to weigh in, as this issue has been on my mind and is really relevant to me and my group.

[Explosion]

After nearly a 10-year-hiatus, I got back into Magic early last year, and I've already played in 2 Vintage tournaments at Pandemonium Books and Games in Cambridge, MA. This was starting from scratch, as I'd sold off my collection. Proxies were absolutely the only way to play at all, and I would have stuck with Standard (and drafts) only if not for proxies. One thing that I think these arguments miss entirely is that while the prices of power might decrease as a whole, the prices of peripheral cards increase. I've been trying to get my hands on Vintage and Legacy staples whenever possible. I'm trading for fetchlands, dual lands, Dazes, Remoras, and Meditates, Welders and Lackeys, etc. Players like me increase the demand for these cards, too!

If I won the Ancestral Recall that Pandemonium had for 1st prize, would I have kept it? Probably not, but only because I'd try to trade it for other staples like a playset of FoWs, or  Mana Drains. With limited disposable income, I have to trade for cards rather than buying them outright, but the presence of proxies has lowered that brass ring to the point where making a Vintage deck seems possible.

At some point, people need to decide if Vintage Magic should be like Chess, or not. Right now, the extreme price of Moxes is akin to having to shell out $1500 for a Queen, and $500 each for Rooks. Can you win a game of Chess without a Queen, or without Rooks? Possibly, but the game is healthier for the even playing field. Vintage Magic has a severe image problem even today, where in addition to the notion of "most money wins," a lot of people see it as "first-turn win, or bust." Win the coin flip, or you lose. Rather than arguing about what proxies are doing, I'd rather see people address the notion of making Vintage more accessible and less frightening.

Lastly, I think Ben's article was pretty slanted toward the notion that proxies impact the price of Vintage cards and Power. Yeah, when you planned on giving a Mox Sapphire as a prize, then proxies reduce that price, and the value of the tournament as a whole. If tournament organizers stopped using Moxes as prizes, and put up cash instead (like nearly all other tournament types), the price wouldn't affect tournament attendance. The health of the format and the game as a whole is not dictated by the price of the cards. Chess, Poker, Scrabble, Bridge, etc. all have phenomenally high numbers of serious players, and the barrier to entry is extremely low. Price people out of the game, and it becomes more like Polo, which is a sport I might enjoy, but I can't afford a horse to find out.

[Smmenen]

There is no doubt that proxies are a positive good by lowering the cost of entry into Vintage. Again, the article is not suggesting that we should abolish proxies or turn Vintage into a game of wealth.    It's simply advocating a different model of usage, based upon years of experience having witnessed the short-term beneficial effects of proxies against the long-term detrimental effects, which I carefully describe in the article.   There is a legitimate question as to where to draw the line to balance those costs.   Some have suggested 7-8.  I suggest a 5-proxy model.

The 5-proxy model is somewhat arbitrary (as all "cut-off numbers" necessarily must be), but when paired with the other mechanisms suggested in the article, I think it is a very workable standard.   With 5 proxies and 1 CE card or one borrowed Mox, you can make a fully powered Grow deck, like the one I played in the Waterbury.   

[Explosion]

What's the cut-off for "too expensive" and thus worthy of being proxied? Personally, I play Charbelcher, and I "need" 7 proxies for my list: Lotus, 5 Moxes, Timetwister. I currently am also missing a Mana Crypt and a Chrome Mox, but I could get those if need be.

Other decks reasonably "need" more; your own Grim Long list from last week's article has Lotus, 5 Moxes, Ancestral Recall, Time Walk, Twister, Imperial Seal, and 4 Grim Tutors. Setting $100 as the bar at which many serious Magic players would balk on shelling out for a single card, your deck "needs" 14 proxies.

There are budget decks, including Christmas Beats and Ichorid, but in order to make Vintage Magic "fair," the average serious player should not have to choose from only a couple of decks because they're $1000 away from being able to make the proxy limit.

I think the real problem is not so much the quantity of the proxies, as the quality. I've lovingly created my own Lotus and Mox proxies, and while I'm not the best artist in the world, every opponent I face will instantly know what card I am playing. A little elbow grease and acetone, an hour with pencils, pens, and markers, and I get the joy of playing with a nice looking, if not real, Mox, instead of a Plains that was Sharpied up. Being able to "see" the cards, really adds a lot. I know there are legal issues to any one person doing too many of these and passing them off as "genuine" proxies, but I think this is a good middle ground between "not enough proxies to play Real Vintage" and "25 crappy proxies that all look the same." If Warhammer and other miniatures scenes can have a minimum acceptable level of work done for a presentable figure, why can't the Vintage scene have a minimum acceptable level of work done for a presentable proxy?

[jamestosetti]

    Five proxy doesn't seem awesome to most people including me at first but I have changed my mind. At 5 proxy you, the one who does not own the power, should not be playing in bigger events  with powered decks in the first place because you are not the one who worked so hard to pay for the cards. If you don't own them you should earn your stay in vintage and play a non powered deck.  People are either going to stay in vintage or they are not so the ones who are going to stay are the ones who will eventually own all the power. This isn't cool to say I know but it also isn't cool the cards are not readily available. If they were people who are not going to stay would eventually get tired of losing and get rid of those cards anyway. It only seems fair for those who paid for these cards to be able to play them. I still have to buy another card to be at 5 proxy and even that is a pretty big deal and it won't be any time in the immediate future. It doesn't matter a whole lot anyway because ichorid is probably the best choice to play but that is just an opinion. That is my veiw on how this helps type 1 in the long run because it encourages dedicated players to stay. If you don't like fish or ichorid then chances are type 1 isn't going to be your format anyway.

[Nehptis]

There is a legitimate question as to where to draw the line to balance those costs.   Some have suggested 7-8.  I suggest a 5-proxy model.
The 5-proxy model is somewhat arbitrary (as all "cut-off numbers" necessarily must be), but when paired with the other mechanisms suggested in the article, I think it is a very workable standard. 

Why 5, and not 3 or 10?  To my earlier point, if we really want to address the proxy model issue then let the "free market" dictate the number of proxies.  Collect data in the manner in which I described above.  This is an easy and direct way to understand how many proxies the tournament "market" will support.

For example, if the data shows that the average number of Proxies used in unlimited Proxy tournies is 10 and the number of players who attended is on par with or greater than an average tournament size with a fixed proxy rule, then I think that's pretty powerful data to support a 10 Proxy standard.

<I realize that the Proxy model is just 1 of many issues which require attention in order to revive Vintage.  But let's start somewhere and not try to boil the ocean.  The proxy issue is very low hanging fruit.>

[Smmenen]

There is a legitimate question as to where to draw the line to balance those costs.   Some have suggested 7-8.  I suggest a 5-proxy model.
The 5-proxy model is somewhat arbitrary (as all "cut-off numbers" necessarily must be), but when paired with the other mechanisms suggested in the article, I think it is a very workable standard. 

Why 5, and not 3 or 10?  To my earlier point, if we really want to address the proxy model issue then let the "free market" dictate the number of proxies.  Collect data in the manner in which I described above.  This is an easy and direct way to understand how many proxies the tournament "market" will support.

For example, if the data shows that the average number of Proxies used in unlimited Proxy tournies is 10 and the number of players who attended is on par with or greater than an average tournament size with a fixed proxy rule, then I think that's pretty powerful data to support a 10 Proxy standard.

<I realize that the Proxy model is just 1 of many issues which require attention in order to revive Vintage.  But let's start somewhere and not try to boil the ocean.  The proxy issue is very low hanging fruit.>

My concern with your proposal was that it did not account for the purpose behind lowering the proxy limit.   The point is not to create a proxy standard that average people use.   It's to balance the short-term costs against the long-term costs. My article is arguing that the "market" isn't working: it's trading short-term gains for long-term costs, like most market mechanisms do that are only concerned with immediate, tangible gains.   Those long-term costs are now materializing: specifically, the fact that there is basically no incentive at all to own power anymore.   Long time Vintage players and the top flight Vintage players that have entered the format in the last few years have not followed the traditional path of power accumulation because of that reason.   This leads to the harms I talk about in the article. 

[hitman]

I disagree with the premise of the article.  It's been insinuated and directly said by multiple parties now that a lack of actual ownership of the power 9 creates a detachment from the format, at least over time.  I can't buy this because the fact of the matter is, Vintage had problems with attendance before proxies were even incorporated.  We started using them in the first place because non-proxy environments weren't successful.  What would make anyone think that if you could only use half-powered decks, anyone would be attracted to attend tournaments anymore?  

I do agree that a lack of ownership ends in a certain lack of attachment to a format but I don't think this is a major reason people aren't interested in the format.  It's only a symptom of the greater problem, which is lack of variety and easily accessible tournaments, logistically speaking.  It's ironic that when I started getting serious about playing Vintage, I subscribed to StarCityGames Premium and that's what ultimately made me lose a lot of interest in the format.  I initially subscribed to read Smmenen's articles and found them worthwhile.  However, after a while, I wondered why I was paying for all these premium articles and only reading one a week.  I started reading about drafting, Extended and Standard and found out that those formats were simply much more interesting.  Vintage almost always stays the same.  You go to a tournament and always play the same old matchups.  With Standard, Extended and Draft rotating as much as they do, you can't really get bored unless you're getting tired of Magic entirely.  Add to that the multitude of tournaments available for those formats and the much larger player base and you have a Vintage player base that's either losing interest in the format because the other formats are fresher and easier to attend or you're losing players due to naturally mounting responsibilities, whether familial or professional.

Raising the cost barrier by reducing the proxy count and prodding players who rarely play anyway to buy ugly Collector's Edition cards won't remedy anything.  I don't say this to be negative but realistic.  I honestly think the best thing a Vintage player can do to help the format is establish a local playing environment.  I use to be really dedicated to the format but with the bad economy, I don't have the desire to spend money to travel out of state to play the same matchups I have for the last four years.  Simply put, I would play more Vintage if it was closer to home.  If you want growth in the format, it's going to come by making things easier for people to play, not harder.  

[fractal7221]

I disagree with the premise of the article.  It's been insinuated and directly said by multiple parties now that a lack of actual ownership of the power 9 creates a detachment from the format, at least over time.  I can't buy this because the fact of the matter is, Vintage had problems with attendance before proxies were even incorporated.  We started using them in the first place because non-proxy environments weren't successful.  What would make anyone think that if you could only use half-powered decks, anyone would be attracted to attend tournaments anymore?  

I do agree that a lack of ownership ends in a certain lack of attachment to a format but I don't think this is a major reason people aren't interested in the format.  It's only a symptom of the greater problem, which is lack of variety and easily accessible tournaments, logistically speaking.  It's ironic that when I started getting serious about playing Vintage, I subscribed to StarCityGames Premium and that's what ultimately made me lose a lot of interest in the format.  I initially subscribed to read Smmenen's articles and found them worthwhile.  However, after a while, I wondered why I was paying for all these premium articles and only reading one a week.  I started reading about drafting, Extended and Standard and found out that those formats were simply much more interesting.  Vintage almost always stays the same.  You go to a tournament and always play the same old matchups.  With Standard, Extended and Draft rotating as much as they do, you can't really get bored unless you're getting tired of Magic entirely.  Add to that the multitude of tournaments available for those formats and the much larger player base and you have a Vintage player base that's either losing interest in the format because the other formats are fresher and easier to attend or you're losing players due to naturally mounting responsibilities, whether familial or professional.

Raising the cost barrier by reducing the proxy count and prodding players who rarely play anyway to buy ugly Collector's Edition cards won't remedy anything.  I don't say this to be negative but realistic.  I honestly think the best thing a Vintage player can do to help the format is establish a local playing environment.  I use to be really dedicated to the format but with the bad economy, I don't have the desire to spend money to travel out of state to play the same matchups I have for the last four years.  Simply put, I would play more Vintage if it was closer to home.  If you want growth in the format, it's going to come by making things easier for people to play, not harder.  

I very much agree with this post. Making Vintage easier and more accessible would help. I don't think switching from 10 proxy to 5 proxy would help create a greater feeling of ownership in the format, it just adds a roughly $1200+ fee to anyone who is interested in vintage.  The cards that really make me care about vintage are the cheaper ones regardless. You'll never come close to the brokenness of casting a Yawgmoth's Will or Tinker in other formats.

Why does owning the only legal in vintage Black Lotus create a greater sense of involvement in the community than a pile containing the only legal in vintage Demonic Tutor, Tinker, Yawgmoth's Will, Necropotence, Strip Mine, and other such cards

I guess I'll make the concession that setting a uniform proxy norm would help the overall health of the format in the long run though. I do not believe the correct number is 5 though; 8 or 12 seem like the most reasonable choices. Eight proxies covers the the moxen, lotus, walk and recall. Twelve allows the uses of commonly used expenses in nearly every deck, namely: drain, workshop, and Grim Tutors. I think this important more for consistency and stability than creating ownership.  The whole creating ownership argument sounds like an appeal to return Vintage to the country club days where it was a small independent niche far separated from the rest of magic.

[Smmenen]

I disagree with the premise of the article.  It's been insinuated and directly said by multiple parties now that a lack of actual ownership of the power 9 creates a detachment from the format, at least over time.  I can't buy this because the fact of the matter is, Vintage had problems with attendance before proxies were even incorporated.  We started using them in the first place because non-proxy environments weren't successful.  What would make anyone think that if you could only use half-powered decks, anyone would be attracted to attend tournaments anymore?  

 Increasing proxy limits has not produced an increase in tournament attendance either.   When Starcitygames.com upped the proxy count from 5 to 10, there was no corresponding increase in the number of players.  Our proxy limits have only steadily risen in the last 5 years and it hasn't helped.  The idea behind proxies was to let people ease into the format, so that they could acquire power over time as they invested in the format.   That hasn't happened.  

In fact, the opposite has happened.   Rather than investing in the format, the 10-15 proxy limits have led to a sell-off.   Even long-time players in many cases no longer own any power.  

You are right: The problems Vintage faces are many.   This article does not claim that there is only one problem. Nor is what you said really inconsistent with it.   It does argue that the higher proxy limits that are currently the standard model do produce some perverse incentives.  

No one is saying that proxies don't help people play Vintage, but there does appear to be diminishing returns, and then, even worse, other unintended consequences kick in, most critically the fact that there is no reason to actually own power in 10-15 proxy environments.  Why hold onto a $300 piece of cardboard when you can play with that card board for free?  It doesn't make any sense.   People who own power are more invested  in the format.  The lack of incentive to own power hurts the format and the community.  

Raising the cost barrier by reducing the proxy count and prodding players who rarely play anyway to buy ugly Collector's Edition cards won't remedy anything.

Collector's Edition cards are actually gorgeous.   They are probably the most beautiful power out there.  Their coloring is rich.   The printing is dark.   They are generally in high quality condition on account of their lack of usage.  

[hitman]

While I acknowledge your point, I disagree with the importance of it.  My counterpoint hits at the fundamental reason why Vintage is the way it is and probably always will be.  I don't think Vintage is dying or will die soon.  I'm saying it's small and will always be small because only a minority of players will like Vintage for what it fundamentally is, and that's fine.  We will never have the variety of other formats.  We will never have the accessibility of other formats.  What we can have is the logistic availability of other formats. 

The reason Wizards will never support Vintage is because from a business point of view, it's a flawed model.  Even if you introduce CE and IE to legality, you'll still eventually run out and prices will still eventually rise to high levels.  What I'm saying is we should foster what we do have locally in order to retain that part of the "market" we do have now and in the future.  Increasing the barrier to play can only discourage a player who is already disinclined to play Vintage. 

If people want to play with five proxies, fine.  I don't care but at the same time I don't think it will solve any problems, real or perceived.  At best it will only delay another inevitable reversal because CE and IE had limited print runs as well.  Has anyone asked themselves why Standard is the most popular?  If we can replicate that model as much as is faithful to Vintage, we'll have a more successful format.  I'm arguing that a weekly local structure would help immensely but also a rotating restricted list could breathe new life into a stagnant format. 

In any case, whatever change you try to make has to revolve around the idea of making the format more accessible.  Increasing the cost to play cannot do that. 

Please don't take my posts as a slight to you.  I see the logical connections you're making.  I just disagree with the importance of them.  I know you get a lot of grief from people about your articles and just want to make it clear that I'm not trying to slight you in any way.  Agree or disagree, I think your weekly articles are a help to the format and are largely informative.

[Phoenix888]

Lurker here. 

Personally, I think egos are what's hurting Vintage the most.  Vintage is the least accessible format in my opinion, because of the attitudes of the "vintage superstars".  It's just not something I'd like to surround myself with if I'm looking to have fun while playing a game.  I've had a lot of fun playing in tournaments in other formats, but the reason I stay away from serious Vintage, is the holier then thou attitude that comes along with it.

Sorry if this is one of those issues that's not covered in the article and therefore, not to be spoken of, but I don't have premium so I wouldn't know if it is or not.

[elgrillo]

Hi. First poster here.

I haven´t read Smmenen article yet, because I don't have a premium account. That should change in the short term because I'm getting more and more into the vintage format.
I'm a relatively old magic player. I started with the exodus pre-release, and I have always loved eternal formats. It seems fair to have a sanctioned format where you are alowed to play just about every card ever printed.

I'm writing this on the fly, without a serious deep analisys. But I don't really want to make any big points but speak my mind on the topic.

I've always played vintage and I've always suffered because of two things:

1) Here (Chile), vintage is a "casual" format. No stores really support the vintage format. The "vintage community" has to make their own tournaments, playing at someone's house with our own proxies rules. This is not a bad thing but puts limits to what we would like the format to be.
2) Power cards are so expensive to get. As a student (when I started playing magic) getting P9 cards was imposible. Period. Now that I work It's REALLY hard. I'm about to have my first child in a couple of weeks, and I will have to pay the hospital roughly the same an unlimited Ancestral Recall costs.


This two points illustrate the things I think would benefit vintage the most.
- More support to the format, meaning a more "mainstream" feel to it. Seeing that wizards and stores care for it.
- Access to the format staples. I've always played underpowered decks in vintage (I don't like proxies much). But the minute I can afford to buy power cards, I will.

Even if I don´t like proxies much, I think a moderate use of them can help make the format take of in places where few people play vintage tournaments. (short term boost, not sure about long term effect). So I think it would help addressing point (1).
Motivating stores to support the format would help solve point (1) also.

Making CE cards tournament legal opens a very interesting opportunity to be able to play "real" vintage decks. It will help the people who love the format, play a wider variety of decks, playing with real cards, and reach that great "I completed my deck" feeling. I don´t know if making CE cards legal will make more people play vintage, but it will, most definitely, strengthen the moral and loyalty of the present vintage players. This helps address point (2) without long term drawbacks as far as I see.

So, to sumarize:

- More support and tournaments (big and smaller ones)
- Careful use of proxies (but definitely use them)
- Make CE legal (thus making more people have complete decks and making them love the format even more, me included).

Cheers!!

[nineisnoone]

while this might be a bit more organized than Vintage can handle.... how about players having proxy "points"? 

say that you get 20 "proxy points" for the year. so for the duration of that year in the organized events, you can only use a total of 20 proxy cards for the entire year.

this would have the benefit of allowing players to step into Vintage for a day with no monetary investment just to get a feel for the format. they could even just blow them all on one deck for one tournament if that is all they care to do.

whereas long term players will now have to invest into the format if they want to play more regularly. it might even encourage a bit of deck diversity looking for them to save their proxies for the bigger tournaments that they want to win.

the 20 number is just something I made up, and it would talk a lot of community organization. i would imagine some sort of database would be necessary. this sort of uniformity of decision making is sort of difficult to manage in any social situation, but in a sort of the-mice-tie-a-bell-to-the-cats-neck sort of way, if you could pull it off it seems like it would work.

[GrandpaBelcher]

I have been following this thread, foaming at the mouth, preparing (as a player who owns no power) to be royally P.O.'d by this article when I finally got the chance to read it, but now that I've finished, I'm fine with most of what you said.

For a lot of players, there isn't that attachment to Power.  I sold my first piece after I won it.  I didn't need it to play with a 10-proxy limit, and having $300 or so in hand was better than having $300 in my deck.  I still feel this way.  I have a full-time job with a good salary, but that doesn't mean I want to or can reasonably invest several thousand dollars to play Vintage.  If the format suddenly went to zero proxies, I envision myself playing budget decks for a while, getting bored, then dropping to play casual Magic and spend my tournament budget elsewhere.

Five proxies I can live with.  There are several decks I can play with five proxies--different, fun decks that have a chance to win the game.  And you're absolutely right that I'll have to hang on to any subsequent Power I win.

Still, I'm not sure that any of the suggestions in this article will "revive" Vintage.  First, there are several negative impressions of Vintage, impressions that are pervasive and very hard to break.  We've already talked about some of the financial barriers and the "Who has the most money wins" phenomenon.  Much of that is solved by proxies.

On top of that, though, players who have not seen or played Vintage largely see it as a one-turn format, kill or be killed instantly, rounds only last fifteen minutes and are completely dependent on the opening hand.  We all know that's not how it works, but how do you convince someone that this disgusting looking GrimLong deck is a fun puzzle that makes you play mind games with your opponent and doesn't always win on turn one or that this Stax deck is fun to play against and doesn't just lock you out every time?  It's a hard impression to break because it makes people reluctant to even try the format. 

Second, I'm confident that the population density and travel argument is valid.  I'm just outside of Washington, DC, and there is very little Vintage here.  TripleAgent has done a great job organizing tournaments in Baltimore (an hour away), but beyond that I'm driving three hours to get to Philadelphia.  A full tank of gas and $12 in tolls make that not a trip to be taken lightly.  There's a weekly Legacy tournament that's 20 minutes up the road; at least I get to play Magic.

These two elements combine to make it outright unlikely that new groups of Vintage players spring up on their own.  One player can't sustain a community by themselves, and even if they do have the inclination to play and keep playing, they might not be able to find enough nearby tournaments to sustain that interest.

There are fluctuations in Vintage interest and attendance even among the "regular" players at different times of the year (often school and weather related) and based on the metagame, depending on how stale things seem.  That's how it goes.  I'm not sure there's anything that we (as players) can do to change this aside from lobbying Wizards well before B&R time to make meaningful changes. 

Obviously, Vintage Magic players and SCG aren't going to be able to rebuild the infrastructure of the US to include cheap high-speed rail and air.  So I think that except for a few large, special tournaments a year, Vintage in the US is going to be 20-30 player tournaments that draw mostly from a local crowd and a few road-warriors that go to game (bless you, Jerry Yang).  What's wrong with that?  It's different from the European model, but having smaller tournaments isn't a necessarily bad thing.  At least there are tournaments, and the community remains strong through its members and social networks like TMD.

Anyway, good article, Steve.  You do a lot to bring in interest from outside the format, mitigating the first element I talked about.  I agree with a five proxy standard.

[Diakonov]

Obviously, Vintage Magic players and SCG aren't going to be able to rebuild the infrastructure of the US to include cheap high-speed rail and air.  So I think that except for a few large, special tournaments a year, Vintage in the US is going to be 20-30 player tournaments that draw mostly from a local crowd and a few road-warriors that go to game (bless you, Jerry Yang).  What's wrong with that?  It's different from the European model, but having smaller tournaments isn't a necessarily bad thing.  At least there are tournaments, and the community remains strong through its members and social networks like TMD.

I completely agree with you.  Expecting Vintage to have a serious resurgence is a bit of a pipe-dream.  I don't think it's impossible, just unlikely.  What's even more important is ensuring that Vintage doesn't implode in the long-run.  However, it sounds like this makes Steven's article even more valid, and I think it might be more aptly titled "Sustaining Vintage" (I didn't read the article, so I apologize if I am way off-base; I'm just going by everyone's comments).  As I already stated earlier, my only disagreement would be on the exact number, which I would place at 7 or 8.  If we could get each player to start off by at least wanting to keep one or two pieces of power, that would be a significant improvement, and then it could be lowered further from there.

I also agree with everyone else who has said that it is more important to have smaller local tournaments that are more frequent.  As a couple people have mentioned, local economies and interest in Vintage varies, so for smaller power tournaments it would make sense to have a variable rate of proxies TBD by the TO, as they will know best how to keep the numbers high. 

The application of a lower standardized number of proxies should be for larger events, where the main goal is not to bring in new players.  Because, let's be honest: if I had never played Vintage and suddenly decided to, I would NOT start off by going to some giant event anyway.  People who attend the larger events tend to already be invested in the game. 

Using this kind staggered proxy model should keep the door open to newcomers while still valuing the possession of power for when it really matters.

[Smmenen]

For a lot of players, there isn't that attachment to Power.  I sold my first piece after I won it.  I didn't need it to play with a 10-proxy limit, and having $300 or so in hand was better than having $300 in my deck.  I still feel this way.  I have a full-time job with a good salary, but that doesn't mean I want to or can reasonably invest several thousand dollars to play Vintage.  If the format suddenly went to zero proxies, I envision myself playing budget decks for a while, getting bored, then dropping to play casual Magic and spend my tournament budget elsewhere.

This is why I also suggest that TOs make CE legal in their non-sanctioned Vintage events, when they lower proxy limits to 5 (or 7 or 8).   CE power costs less than a quarter of what power costs. 

Back in the day, players would slowly accumulate power, and proxies and a culture of letting people borrow power enabled that.   Today, there is no incentive at all to acquire or hold onto power.  In fact, it's stupid to do so since for most Americans there is only one tournament per year in which you need to own power.   This feeds back on itself since players like myself, who used to have 4 Mox Sapphires to loan out, or Marc Perez, who used to have multiple sets of P9 to loan out, only have one for ourselves anymore.   

[benthetenor]

Back in the day, players would slowly accumulate power, and proxies and a culture of letting people borrow power enabled that.   Today, there is no incentive at all to acquire or hold onto power. In fact, it's stupid to do so since for most Americans there is only one tournament per year in which you need to own power.    This feeds back on itself since players like myself, who used to have 4 Mox Sapphires to loan out, or Marc Perez, who used to have multiple sets of P9 to loan out, only have one for ourselves anymore.   

Maybe if there were more than one large tournament a year, sanctioned or low proxy or whatever you want, then there would be more interest in owning power. I think it has very little to do with the "proxy culture" and more to do with simply not having any tournaments that are worth traveling 500 miles to.

[Smmenen]

Back in the day, players would slowly accumulate power, and proxies and a culture of letting people borrow power enabled that.   Today, there is no incentive at all to acquire or hold onto power. In fact, it's stupid to do so since for most Americans there is only one tournament per year in which you need to own power.    This feeds back on itself since players like myself, who used to have 4 Mox Sapphires to loan out, or Marc Perez, who used to have multiple sets of P9 to loan out, only have one for ourselves anymore.   

Maybe if there were more than one large tournament a year, sanctioned or low proxy or whatever you want, then there would be more interest in owning power. I think it has very little to do with the "proxy culture" and more to do with simply not having any tournaments that are worth traveling 500 miles to.

Heh.  You really don't think that having a 15 proxy standard is a good reason not to own power?

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Back in the day, players would slowly accumulate power, and proxies and a culture of letting people borrow power enabled that.   Today, there is no incentive at all to acquire or hold onto power. In fact, it's stupid to do so since for most Americans there is only one tournament per year in which you need to own power.    This feeds back on itself since players like myself, who used to have 4 Mox Sapphires to loan out, or Marc Perez, who used to have multiple sets of P9 to loan out, only have one for ourselves anymore.   

Maybe if there were more than one large tournament a year, sanctioned or low proxy or whatever you want, then there would be more interest in owning power. I think it has very little to do with the "proxy culture" and more to do with simply not having any tournaments that are worth traveling 500 miles to.

Heh.  You really don't think that having a 15 proxy standard is a good reason not to own power?

I think most people only having one tournament per year within reasonable range compounded by a crumbling economy are both better reasons not to own power than just the "because I can" 15-proxy standard. When I read about people going on 4-5 hour one-way drives to play in Vintage tournaments I salute them for their dedication but very few people are actually willing to do things like that especially if they're just entering the format. Raising Vintage awareness and having more big tournaments hosted all across North America would do more for the format than cutting back proxies. Maybe some kind of big promotional tournament tour like bands/authors do would be the solution. It is no big secret who the biggest names in Vintage are maybe this is a way to give back to the community and try to revive it.

[Smmenen]

Heh.  Obviously there are reasons not to own power.  Not liking the format is a good one.    But we can't deny the effect of proxies.

If it weren't for the vintage champs I would have sold my power years ago.

[Suicideking]

If the problem is the devaluation of power, which makes up the majority of vintage tournament prize, would the solution be to offer some other prize.  Star City is holding a Legacy tournament where five thousand dollars will be given away.  Why don't vintage players get this.  I guarantee if you put up 5k you would get a lot more players with 15 proxies then 5 or 0.   

[Diakonov]

I think most people only having one tournament per year within reasonable range compounded by a crumbling economy are both better reasons not to own power than just the "because I can" 15-proxy standard.

Really?  You're saying most people would rather have thousands of dollars invested in cards that they don't need?  Plus, I would hope that there's more than one tournament for a person to attend within a reasonable distance per year.  If this really is the case, then forget proxies, why be involved in Vintage at all?

When I read about people going on 4-5 hour one-way drives to play in Vintage tournaments I salute them for their dedication but very few people are actually willing to do things like that especially if they're just entering the format. Raising Vintage awareness and having more big tournaments hosted all across North America would do more for the format than cutting back proxies. Maybe some kind of big promotional tournament tour like bands/authors do would be the solution. It is no big secret who the biggest names in Vintage are maybe this is a way to give back to the community and try to revive it.

This sounds great and all, but what cause would motivate this to happen?  I think your argument assumes its own conclusion, because really what we're trying to figure out is how we could someday get it to be at the level you are talking about.  If we were able to support big tournaments happening all over the place, we wouldn't need to be here discussing it.

[Smmenen]

.  I guarantee if you put up 5k you would get a lot more players with 15 proxies then 5 or 0.   

Of course.   For any given event, more proxies rather than less will tend to increase attendance.   That's a given. 

[benthetenor]

Back in the day, players would slowly accumulate power, and proxies and a culture of letting people borrow power enabled that.   Today, there is no incentive at all to acquire or hold onto power. In fact, it's stupid to do so since for most Americans there is only one tournament per year in which you need to own power.    This feeds back on itself since players like myself, who used to have 4 Mox Sapphires to loan out, or Marc Perez, who used to have multiple sets of P9 to loan out, only have one for ourselves anymore.   

Maybe if there were more than one large tournament a year, sanctioned or low proxy or whatever you want, then there would be more interest in owning power. I think it has very little to do with the "proxy culture" and more to do with simply not having any tournaments that are worth traveling 500 miles to.

Heh.  You really don't think that having a 15 proxy standard is a good reason not to own power?

Now, I definitely didn't say that. I happen to agree with your logic. I also happen to think that there are way more productive lines of reasoning than "proxies are killing vintage in the long term". This would be a non-issue if there were tournaments to attend.