TheManaDrain.com
October 15, 2019, 02:01:07 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: [Free Podcast] So Many Insane Plays # 24: Dragon's Maze Set Review  (Read 17967 times)
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2013, 03:43:08 pm »

It was something along the lines that the free counters don't answer bob outside of force, so library decks are weak against it.

But I would really like to know we're the average number of turns per game comes from.

The average number of turns per player per game comes from counting turns per games in tournaments.

We can dispute the validity of that statistic, but Vintage is the fastest constructed format, and it's not even close.  Library is a slow draw engine, not an explosive one like Thirst, Gush or Gifts.  I certainly don't think it's better than Jace.  And, it's not even as good of a card as another land from the same set: Bazaar.  

I don't recall anyone saying Bob is a trump to library.  The main point is that Library is a safe unrestrict because it's not that dangerous in a format this fast.   The average number of turns per player is about 4.5 per game, and games often end faster than that.   
You specifically mentioned Dark Confidant and Delver of Secrets as tactics against Library decks, which I immediately thought was a poor example, and spurred me to write this down at the time of listening as the start of an article:
"Landstill easily answers Dark Confidant and Delver of Secrets with Lightning Bolt, Fire//Ice, Engineered Explosives, all of which are commongly played. Landstill can EASILY be tuned to beat creature decks.

Landstill answers Hymn with Spell Snare, Flusterstorm, Force, Misdirection, all of which are commonly played."

The second part was because someone (Kevin, I believe) also mentioned that other tactics like Hymn to Tourach would probably pop up in the face of Library decks, which I also found amusing.

I am on the more Libertarian side of Banned & Restricted thought, but do not agree with the unrestriction of either Library of Alexandria or Balance. I did agree with the unrestriction of Regrowth and felt that it could have come off a while ago (and think there are still more cards I would pull off, one at a time). I am leaning towards writing a longer piece about Banned & Restricted policy theory in general, and will probably use Library and Balance among other examples.

My problem with Regrowth is simple: it makes the Gush bond engine too consistent.  It's a more flexible and often better Merchant Scroll in that engine, once you have found a Gush. 

Balance is fine as long as folks are comfortable with 5c Stax with 4 Balance. 

Re: Library.  All of those examples are besides the point.   The point is that Library is fine in a format this fast. 


Logged

JACO
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 1215


Don't be a meatball.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2013, 03:53:48 pm »

My problem with Regrowth is simple: it makes the Gush bond engine too consistent.  It's a more flexible and often better Merchant Scroll in that engine, once you have found a Gush. 

Balance is fine as long as folks are comfortable with 5c Stax with 4 Balance. 

Re: Library.  All of those examples are besides the point.   The point is that Library is fine in a format this fast. 
I think Regrowth makes Gush playable and consistent, but not too consistent. Gush has proven to be playable, but not broken, and I don't think Regrowth will put it over the tipping point either. I guess this summer we'll have plenty of big tournaments for it to prove itself.

I understand the point you are arguing about 4 Library of Alexandria being safe in a format this fast, but I don't agree with it. I also think you ignore many of the other things that influence Banned & Restricted List policy when you guys analyzed those two cards in particular. I will elaborate more on this in a full article, because it's a fairly in depth discussion in my mind. I am still waiting for Soly's rebuttal article about your podcast, so I can provide a rebuttal to parts of that as well if need be. Wink
Logged

Want to write about Vintage, Legacy, Modern, Type 4, or Commander/EDH? Eternal Central is looking for writers! Contact me. Follow me on Twitter @JMJACO. Follow Eternal Central on Twitter @EternalCentral.
Cruel Ultimatum
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 571

froz3nn
View Profile
« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2013, 04:03:06 pm »

The reason you give for the format is 2 restricted cards (tfk and gifts) and gush, which isn't seeing much play at the moment. Since I started playing vintage (4ish years ago) this is the slowest I have seen the format, so I don't quite follow. Not that I am debating that vintage is slower the. Standard.
Logged

Egan

ECW
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2013, 04:15:10 pm »

My problem with Regrowth is simple: it makes the Gush bond engine too consistent.  It's a more flexible and often better Merchant Scroll in that engine, once you have found a Gush.  

Balance is fine as long as folks are comfortable with 5c Stax with 4 Balance.  

Re: Library.  All of those examples are besides the point.   The point is that Library is fine in a format this fast.
I think Regrowth makes Gush playable and consistent, but not too consistent. Gush has proven to be playable, but not broken, and I don't think Regrowth will put it over the tipping point either. I guess this summer we'll have plenty of big tournaments for it to prove itself.

Gush is already a proven playable.  It has plenty of Top 8s, tournament victories, etc since its last unrestriction.   Regrowth makes executing the Gushbond engine too consistent, in terms of being able to consistently combo out from resolving Fastbond to Yawg Will.  

Quote

I understand the point you are arguing about 4 Library of Alexandria being safe in a format this fast, but I don't agree with it. I also think you ignore many of the other things that influence Banned & Restricted List policy when you guys analyzed those two cards in particular. I will elaborate more on this in a full article, because it's a fairly in depth discussion in my mind. I am still waiting for Soly's rebuttal article about your podcast, so I can provide a rebuttal to parts of that as well if need be. Wink

I'm curious what criteria could be missing.

We set out at least three clear criteria for restriction:

1) Cards that create dominant/best decks.  This is the monopoly criteria.   These are cards like Gush in the past, Thrist in the more recent past, etc.  

2) Cards that create an unacceptable number of turn one kills or coin flip scenarios (meaning, the player who goes first wins has a ridiculous advantage in the matchup.   The examples here are cards like Flash and Trinisphere.

3) A dominant tactic.  Where a tactic can support multiple decks, but decks without this tactic can't win.  This is a corollary to the 1st criteria.  Scroll is an example.  

In considering possible unrestrictions, I would add a 4th criteria to consider:

4) Consolidation at a tactical level.  tactics that push out other tactics and reduce the # of alternatively viable tactics.   Thirst is also an example of this, but Gush has been one as well.   The problem with Gush the last time around wasn't that it was dominant, but that the Gushbond engine was basically ported into every strategy: Oath, Grow, Painter, You name it.

***

Bear in mind that all of these criteria are rooted in "fun."   Fun in Magic is defined as having choice.  If people don't have meaningful choice, they don't have fun.  People don't have fun when they don't have a meaningful deck choice, a meaningful choice to make plays, or a meaningful choice about how to design their decks.  You'll find each of those elements reflected in the criteria above.

Other criteria, such as expense/secondary market, are not viewed as legitimate criteria by the DCI.  

The reason you give for the format is 2 restricted cards (tfk and gifts) and gush, which isn't seeing much play at the moment. Since I started playing vintage (4ish years ago) this is the slowest I have seen the format, so I don't quite follow. Not that I am debating that vintage is slower the. Standard.

Gush isn't seeing play?  It just won the LCV this month. http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=45255.0

Vintage is the fastest constructed format because of the abundance and prevalance of cards like Black Lotus and Moxen.

If the format seems slow, that's just because it is dramatically under developed on account of the fact that very few people actually play this format anymore.   It's very much similar situation to what Legacy used to look like before the SCG circuit, when Landstill was actually a deck in Legacy.  Once good players started playing the format, and landstill disappeared as an archetype.  

When I won the Vintage championship in 2007, Library was barely even good enough for my deck.  And the format is much faster now.  Nor was Library good enough from my 3rd place deck in 2011.    
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 04:05:14 pm by Smmenen » Logged

Cruel Ultimatum
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 571

froz3nn
View Profile
« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2013, 04:56:45 pm »

Thank you for the link. It really showed me how bad library is in vintage. Oh wait! Half of the top 8 is playing it, including the winner.
Logged

Egan

ECW
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2013, 04:59:47 pm »

Thank you for the link. It really showed me how bad library is in vintage. Oh wait! Half of the top 8 is playing it, including the winner.

I shared the link because you said Gush isn't playable.   Proving otherwise.
 
I didn't say Library is bad.  I just don't think it needs to be restricted.  The format is fast enough to handle it.
Logged

Cruel Ultimatum
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 571

froz3nn
View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 01, 2013, 05:15:06 pm »

Thank you for the link. It really showed me how bad library is in vintage. Oh wait! Half of the top 8 is playing it, including the winner.

I shared the link because you said Gush isn't playable.   Proving otherwise.
 
I didn't say Library is bad.  I just don't think it needs to be restricted.  The format is fast enough to handle it.


I actually said it wasn't seeing much play. That lcv proves the top16 deck lists, and of that gush is in one of 16 decks. That would be not seeing much play. In the northeast, gush has pretty much died out completely. I expect to see a lot of it in the next couple of weeks because of regrowth, but I don't think it will do particularly well.

As for the speed of vintage, I think the three biggest decks are land still, bomberman, and forgemaster shops. The blue ones are very slow and forgemaster isn't exactl blisteringly fast. I think the biggest tell of the format being slow is the fact that dredge has been cutting it dread return because hey are faster then the blue decks anyway.
Logged

Egan

ECW
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2013, 06:59:54 pm »

Thank you for the link. It really showed me how bad library is in vintage. Oh wait! Half of the top 8 is playing it, including the winner.

I shared the link because you said Gush isn't playable.   Proving otherwise.
 
I didn't say Library is bad.  I just don't think it needs to be restricted.  The format is fast enough to handle it.


I actually said it wasn't seeing much play. That lcv proves the top16 deck lists, and of that gush is in one of 16 decks. That would be not seeing much play. In the northeast, gush has pretty much died out completely. I expect to see a lot of it in the next couple of weeks because of regrowth, but I don't think it will do particularly well.


The March LCV had 3 Gush decks in the top 8.  http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1728&highlight=Gush  

Quote


As for the speed of vintage, I think the three biggest decks are land still, bomberman, and forgemaster shops. The blue ones are very slow and forgemaster isn't exactl blisteringly fast. I think the biggest tell of the format being slow is the fact that dredge has been cutting it dread return because hey are faster then the blue decks anyway.

Not a single one of those decks showed up in the March LCV Top 8, the largest march Vintage tournament on the planet in March according to Morphling.de stats.  

And just because some, by Vintage standards, slower control decks might be performing well doesn't mean the format can't handle Library unrestricted.  

Library isn't as bad as Fact or Fiction, but its certainly not better than Jace, which is unrestricted.  


* * *

To summarize.  The arguments in favor of Library's unrestriction are:

1) It is weaker than many cards that are already unrestricted, like Jace and Bazaar.  

2) It will not create a dominant deck like Thirst did.  Landstill or other slow decks will not dominate if given 4 Library.  (Does anyone seriously think Landstill would become 40% of Top 8s?)

3) It will not crowd out other blue tactics -- far from it -- it will complement them.  No one thinks that Library will crowd out other blue draw engines or force others to go away.  

4) The format is fast enough to handle Library.  This is Vintage after all.  

5) Library is not a draw engine like Thirst/Gush which can be played to draw a ton of cards in one turn, but is incremental advantage, even in multiples.

6) There are more answers to Library today than ever before with cards like Ghost Quarter, etc.  

7) Library is a tactic like Flusterstorm that is good in some matchups and bad in others.  That makes it fair and worth unrestricting.

8) Library does not produce turn one or turn two kills.  It's not Flash.

The objections to Library  being unrestricted are very unpersuasive:

1) The format is slow, and will empower slow control decks.  

Even if true, is that a bad thing for Vintage?  Although, it's not true.  History and experience shows that slow control decks can be readily defeated in this format.

The natural equilibrium in the format is not slow control decks re:keeper , but combo control decks like Control Slaver (2005), Grixis Control (2012), Psychatog (2003), Gifts (2006), and decks like that which do broken things.  Blue tempo decks also perform very well in Eternal formats against slow control.  That's why Grow/Delver decks always defeated slower control decks in every extended/Legayc/Vintage format.

2) Library is unbeatable in the blue mirror.

Patently untrue.  Library is no more unbeatable in blue mirrors than other strong tactics, and is routinely defeated.  I've been on both sides of that many times.  I've defeated Library countless times with all kinds of tactics, including Jace, Tinker, Yawg Will, Time vault, Gushbonding Out, Oath, etc.  

3) Library will become too expensive.

That's not a concern of the DCI.  Cost is irrellevant to DCI policy.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 12:46:24 pm by Smmenen » Logged

brianpk80
2015 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 1333



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 01, 2013, 10:15:15 pm »

3) Library will become too expensive.

That's not a concern of the DCI.  Cost is irrellevant[sic] to DCI policy.

Even if we blindly accept at face value the idea that the DCI is ignorant of the secondary market and strictly unconcerned (which I doubt), since we're not the DCI and neither are you, that doesn't mean the scarcity of the card can't be taken into consideration as a community matter.  You can't reconcile the ideas that "we're going to abolish proxies and unrestrict one of the rarest cards ever printed" with "we want the format to grow [re: stop hemorrhaging players with no comparable replacement]." 

Secondly, I don't know if you appreciate that Library decks are not slow to -win-; they're only slow to formally seal the deal.  It takes very few unmolested Library activations in a deck filled with pitch counters and removal to reach a position of advantage from which an opponent cannot recover.  An unskilled opponent may continue to play futilely not realizing that it's over long before the Factories (or whatever) hit but it's comparable to Trinisphere in the sense that it's demoralizing and you need a Hail Mary magical Christmasland sequence of draws filled with cards that are not optimal against most of the format at large (Ghost Quarter in blue?) and a stunning fizzle by the Library player (hand filled with 8 lands?) for any hope of prevailing.     

The fact that Wastelands exist is no more an argument for unrestricting than the existence of Chalice is for the unrestriction of Moxen.  That kind of determinative binary situation (Do I have library, does he/she have Wasteland) is exactly what Kevin warned against in the podcast re: Leyline of Sanctity.

Additionally, there's a bigger burden required to prove a card should be unrestricted than to prove it shouldn't be restricted in the first place.  It's not met here, especially without strong community consensus.   

What appears to be driving your position is not good stewardship of the format, but unrestriction fetishism, the abnormal belief that reducing the percentage of cards restricted or banned even by a few hundredths of a decimal point is a source of joy in and of itself, more than playing the game, and even if it comes at the expense of reviving the format or improving the dismal long term prognosis.  It's probably a good time to think instead of measures that can make Type 1 more attractive to potential players rather than making it increasingly degenerate and embarrassing.
Logged

"It seems like a normal Monk deck with all the normal Monk cards.  And then the clouds divide...  something is revealed in the skies."
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2013, 01:45:41 am »

3) Library will become too expensive.

That's not a concern of the DCI.  Cost is irrellevant[sic] to DCI policy.

Even if we blindly accept at face value the idea that the DCI is ignorant of the secondary market and strictly unconcerned (which I doubt), since we're not the DCI and neither are you, that doesn't mean the scarcity of the card can't be taken into consideration as a community matter.  You can't reconcile the ideas that "we're going to abolish proxies and unrestrict one of the rarest cards ever printed" with "we want the format to grow [re: stop hemorrhaging players with no comparable replacement]."  

That is true.  The community can take that into account, but I assure you that the DCI and Wizards more generally does not promulgate policy on the basis of secondary market values.  They have said many times as much in public statements.

Quote

Secondly, I don't know if you appreciate that Library decks are not slow to -win-; they're only slow to formally seal the deal.  It takes very few unmolested Library activations in a deck filled with pitch counters and removal to reach a position of advantage from which an opponent cannot recover.

First of all, that's simply not true.  If that were true than Ancestral Recall would be unbeatable if it resolved, yet I've seen an increasing number of games in recent years where Ancestral Recall is trumped by the many other trumps in the format.  I can recall one particular instance in which a great player Ancestral Recalled, Misdirected the opponent's Ancestral, and still lost the game by turn 5.

Second, even if that were true, that doesn't mean that Library isn't a safe unrestrict.  If Library decks were to perform well, then decks would quickly emerge to combat them.  I firmly believe that tempo decks would emerge to crush Landstill, just as they did in Legacy.  

Moreover, I believe that Control decks in the aggro role, like Grixis Control, would be able to defeat Landstill with opening Library far more than you are suggesting.  Think about a deck like Control Slaver or Meandeck Gifts circa 2005-2006 - those decks would DESTROY any Library deck in this format right now.   The same is true for many good decks in the format right now, it's just less obvious to some players who overestimate Library's strength and underestimate its weaknesses because they've only been playing this format a few years.  Library would have been a safe unrestrict 6 years ago.  It's safer now.  It's just less obvious now.  

Quote

What appears to be driving your position is not good stewardship of the format, but unrestriction fetishism, the abnormal belief that reducing the percentage of cards restricted or banned even by a few hundredths of a decimal point is a source of joy in and of itself, more than playing the game, and even if it comes at the expense of reviving the format or improving the dismal long term prognosis.  It's probably a good time to think instead of measures that can make Type 1 more attractive to potential players rather than making it increasingly degenerate and embarrassing.

Haha!

* If I truly had a 'unrestriction fetish,' then how can you reconcile my opposition to the unrestriction of Regrowth?  Or the fact that I opposed more unrestrictions than Kevin?  Or the fact that,  prior to the unrestriction of Regrowth, I described the B&R list as nearly perfect?  Or the fact that I support the restriction of Golem?  I assure I do not have an unrestriction fetish, but rather principled positions and experience based opinions (each of which inform the other).  

* I DO get joy from unrestricting cards -- from the increase in meaningful choices that arise from having more design options in the format.  Let's not underestimate the utility derived from having more card/deck options.  

* Degenerate is ultimately subjective.  I"m working on the '1999' chapter of the History of Vintage, and the remarks and commentary about that time period is so pejorative its almost unbelievable.  What folks found so disconcerting and disturbing, I find to be a source of fun and excitement.   Zvi's 1998 review of Urza's Saga, for example, and his corollary assertion that a format must have 4 turns to be a legitimate format is, in my opinion misguided and untrue.  I fully embrace the brokenness that so many others find to be a problem.  I am not in the slightest concerned that some people are wrongly and foolishly embarrassed by this element of the format.  Why?  Because at the end of the day, this is a skill format.  The same players, over and over again, are top performers.  The correlation between skill and performance is so patently obvious that no serious person could deny it.  

If that's true, and I believe it is, than any perceived degeneracy is just that: perceived, and not real.  It's based on no less than superstition and myth about Magic.  

* The growth of this format is and has forever been circumscribed not by DCI policy, but Wizards reprint policy.   That is beyond our control.   The trajectory of Type I/Vintage was set well over a decade ago, and it is far too late in the day to try other means to fix it now.  I firmly believe that if this format had proper support it would reveal itself, finally, as the best format, even with all the supposed "degeneracy."  Incidentally, Library would not contribute to it.  Nor, do I believe, would Balance.  Balance is analogous to Mind Twist in Legacy.   Both innocuous but banned/restricted based on fear.  

My goal is to promote the format by selling it as it is.  It would be far more foolish -- and disingenuous -- for me to pretend that the format is not what it is than to highlight those elements as its selling point.  

Trying to get people into the format by persuading them that -- "No really, Vintage is fair," as that term is understood in other formats is a fools errand.  A few quick games will put lie to that.   An early Tinker, Time Vault, Oath, Lodestone Golem, etc will show that Vintage is not like other formats. 

I think the future of this format's success does not hinge upon making Vintage seem less degenerate, but rather the opposite: confronting its degeneracy, and then persuading people that in spite of this prevailing reality, the format is ultimately fair because it is ultimately skill intensive.   It is degenerate relative to other formats, but ultimately fair.   
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 02:55:45 am by Smmenen » Logged

Guli
Basic User
**
Posts: 1763


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2013, 02:55:32 am »

@Smmenen
A lot of times you support your arguments with 'I have seen this happen' or 'I was in that situation and managed to win'. I don't think this strengthens your argument. I can also say that I have won many games and seen many games were the player opening with the Library lost the game. However the exact opposite is also true. I did not keep any track of the statistics on this. What I remember is that Library seems like a tempo loss but in fact is not. And it takes over the game pretty quickly. A lot of times they draw a card of it and drop a mox, the next turn they can draw another card and bolt your Thalia or Golem. The turn after they have 4 mana and 7 cards. How is this in any way a tempo loss.

One could argue that library is actually good in fast formats. It slows the game down because you get to draw extra counters and extra removal while building up mana and preys on decks who rely on getting out a fast sphere or threat like Lodestone or Thalia. I have a feeling when you are talking about Library, you only have match ups like Landstill versus Oath in mind, where the Oath can totally bypass any number of Loa activation because it simply is such a huge card. Or were the Library is facing some doomsday Gush deck and is caught off guard with a too small counter wall.

What exactly do you mean with 'the meta will adapt'. Correct me if I am wrong, but does this insinuate that some decks will disappear to make room for other decks just so to fight these Loa decks? (aka decks who tend to bombastically win in a single turn pushing through counter magic) Ok let's do this exercise, what exactly is an 'answer' to a card like Loa? The times that LoA wins on itself is acceptable in its current restricted state, because it does not happen a lot. But when it happens, you feel very helpless in the control mirror or if you are a Aggro player that can't manage to topdeck a wasteland.

I am perfectly comfortable in fighting control players who try to dig and search and try to set up a  win while I try to disrupt them with bears. Go ahead, unrestrict Gifts and Ponder. I will be happy to run Believers and we have a game. But I don't like to helplessly go down without a fight against cards like Trinisphere, Tinker, Balance or Loa. Like you stated, people want to make meaningful choices and put up a good fight. We want that the cards we run matter. Not being able to play them during a game is degenerate. It is even more degenerate that you do get to play your cards but knowing that it will not matter and you are just casting spells to see them countered or removed and then they drop jace or whatever and you scoop. I like the unknown when it comes to game outcomes. It would be like playing with a pawn dawn against an equally good opponent in chess. The game is over before it starts, and a pawn up without compensation means the game is over in competitive chess matches. Usually in chess, you can play a gambit and give up material (like a pawn), and in return you get activity and dynamic peace play or a strong attack on their king. The sacrifice is made by the player who takes initiative not by the defending player.

I don't like Tinker, I don't like making my deck tinker proof. Vintage does not need cards like Tinker, Balance, Trinisphere, 5 Golems, Non legend Thalia's, etc to be a fun and exciting format. I like it when both sides drop their moxes, play their threats, dig for answers, remove each other stuff, activate Planeswalkers, etc etc. All this in a fast fashion thanks to acceleration and free spells. I don't see why it is necessary to have these random and degenerate oops I win cards. Is it only to see the face of the player who is on the losing side? or is it so we can say 'yea this is vintage' which I hear a lot after a turn 1 Tinker. Wtf does that even mean? That is not vintage at all, vintage is about interaction, about complex choices, about good games.
Logged

Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 02, 2013, 03:04:00 am »

I just edited and expanded my previous post, but it's directly relevant to many of the themes you raised.  

The basic gist is that far from denying the inescapable reality that this format does do broken things, we should make it the selling point.  I don't think we can or should deny that.  Rather, I think we must acknowledge it and that and then show how the format remains fair because skill intensive.  
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 03:28:42 am by Smmenen » Logged

PETER FLUGZEUG
Full Members
Basic User
***
Posts: 275


New Ease


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #42 on: May 02, 2013, 03:38:10 am »

Why don't you start a poll to see what the community thinks about this idea?

I think that if there is strong opposition to this idea it's not worth pursuing with such vigor and eloquence. At least not at the moment. If there is a lot of agreement, continue. (I recall that there has been a poll before, regarding the restricted list and dredge... Set up by Smennen.)

Why not go for the more obvious unrestriction candidate (in my opinion): ponder? Is it not interesting enough?

Logged

I will be playing four of these.  I'll worry about the deck later.
Guli
Basic User
**
Posts: 1763


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 02, 2013, 03:42:26 am »

Look, there are ways to fight a turn 1 Lodestone Golem. Some decks do that with Force of Will, some try to get enough mana to STP it. Some wasteland the mana and try to get a Mayor in play to deal with it before it gets you below zero. The problem is though, you might never get a chance to play any cards in your hand because they have a metamorphic or sphere or second Golem. Now the second sphere is acceptable, but a second 5/3 dude that reads: you still can not play anything is too brutal (the 5 power is just too much). If Golem was a legend,it would still be hard, but it would be acceptable. I am not going to accept some absurd line of play (as in bend over and let it happen without raising my voice) just because it is a realty right now. I accept the reality of it that it exists and I try to deal with it but I will put my concerns and solutions into words for sure nevertheless. This absurdness can change if the people who are responsible for errata/restriction/ban decide to change this. You are buying cards and going to a tourney, only to shuffle your deck and draw cards from the top of your library. I am sorry but I can do this at home alone, without investing money and time by driving all the way to the nearest vintage event. Game balance is an important thing, some games, like Brood War (rts), took years to patch and find an acceptable balance between the three races. The game awards skill, when you are skilled, and play good, you will have a good chance taking the game.

I love to lose after a well fought battle with several swings of advantage during the course of the game. I also love to win after all that, it is very satisfying and rewarding. If we have a chance to make the game like that as much as possible, I really don't see the need to include random degenerate things (no matter how subjective you call it we all know what I am talking about here). You can not keep theory crafting and stating arguments. It is good to be concrete about some issues I think. I usually don't involve myself in these kinds of discussions, in fact I think it is the first time I raised my voice on the matter.

Broken plays and degenerate plays are two different things. I am perfectly happy with my opponent casting Ancestral Recall and Time walk on occasion. I can fight against that, because the game is not over yet. Let me give you an example of degenerate: If Thalia was not a legend, a deck running it would be able to play 20 copies of it. The games would be degenerate. Blue would not stand a chance and they would not be able to play any spells. In fact, nobody would be able to play a spell. (Thalia, Glowrider, Phantasmal Image, Metamorph, Shapesharer)

I for one, really want to know why there is need for cards like Trinisphere and Tinker. What does it accomplish to give people access to these cards?
Logged

bax
Basic User
**
Posts: 119


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2013, 07:32:31 am »

Guli, you are going overboard, Cards like Tinker, Trini, Balance, and the rest of the insane bombs are format defining stuff. Without them you can just play legacy. Vintage is brutal, and you should always be prepared for the worse. There are no excuses.

LoA could be unrestricted, becasue fondamentally it is true that give you a massive card advantage, but it is a tempo loss and played in 4x destabilize the manabase that a typical LoA deck needs. Workshop has more rationale to be limited than LoA.

But i do think that currently in the restricted list there are cards with much less reason for staying restricted when compared to LoA,  Ponder & windfall for example.
Logged

Guli
Basic User
**
Posts: 1763


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2013, 08:45:23 am »

Guli, you are going overboard, Cards like Tinker, Trini, Balance, and the rest of the insane bombs are format defining stuff. Without them you can just play legacy. Vintage is brutal, and you should always be prepared for the worse. There are no excuses.

LoA could be unrestricted, becasue fondamentally it is true that give you a massive card advantage, but it is a tempo loss and played in 4x destabilize the manabase that a typical LoA deck needs. Workshop has more rationale to be limited than LoA.

But i do think that currently in the restricted list there are cards with much less reason for staying restricted when compared to LoA,  Ponder & windfall for example.
This is nonsense, it is not format defining at all, it is format polluting. This is the exact attitude I don't understand. We really need to get rid of these stereotyping, I mean come on now, brutality is what makes vintage vintage? I have a personal disgust for the statement 'Go play Legacy'. Don't ever use it again when responding to me.

Vintage without Tinker or Trinisphere will not make it less Vintage, it would make it more meaningful.
Logged

xouman
Basic User
**
Posts: 1082


View Profile Email
« Reply #46 on: May 02, 2013, 09:57:42 am »

Trinisphere is meant to be a symmetrical card. It affects all players. When one of those players has MWS it becomes asymmetrical, but being restricted is ok to me. you can open with trini, and if you don't apply enough pressure, I can do something provide I have 3 lands.

Tinker is nastier imho. It's a one card combo. You only have 1 turn to respond, or 2 wasting resources (creatures) in the way. Any slow deck must have some plan against BSC or die consistently. Yawgmoth's will is another nasty card, winning the game if unanswered.

Still, you can make a deck that performs well even not focusing all-in against those strategies.Thalias, fows, cages, steel sabotage... there are lots of cards that answer one or more threats, and some even are good by themselevs (as thalia). I like the metagame as it is now. In fact the card I like the less (even when I play it when possible) is Golem. Lots of times requires inmediate answer or it's GG, unnacceptable for an unrestricted card at that cost IMHO.
Logged
bax
Basic User
**
Posts: 119


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2013, 10:27:15 am »

This is nonsense, it is not format defining at all, it is format polluting. This is the exact attitude I don't understand. We really need to get rid of these stereotyping, I mean come on now, brutality is what makes vintage vintage? I have a personal disgust for the statement 'Go play Legacy'. Don't ever use it again when responding to me.

Vintage without Tinker or Trinisphere will not make it less Vintage, it would make it more meaningful.

I think we agree to disagree here. I did not mean to say "go play legacy" sorry. I wanted to say that vintage without the crazy overpowered restricted cards "IS" legacy, whatever you like it or not, it is a matter of fact. Take a Deck like Stoneblade, remove LoA, Ancestral, Time Walk, Mox & Lotus, Mystical Tutor, now add back in Brainstorm 2,3 & 4 and the Vintage version of the deck looks a lot like the Legacy version of the same.

The power level of vintage is defined by broken plays.
Logged

Guli
Basic User
**
Posts: 1763


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: May 02, 2013, 01:21:30 pm »

This is nonsense, it is not format defining at all, it is format polluting. This is the exact attitude I don't understand. We really need to get rid of these stereotyping, I mean come on now, brutality is what makes vintage vintage? I have a personal disgust for the statement 'Go play Legacy'. Don't ever use it again when responding to me.

Vintage without Tinker or Trinisphere will not make it less Vintage, it would make it more meaningful.

I think we agree to disagree here. I did not mean to say "go play legacy" sorry. I wanted to say that vintage without the crazy overpowered restricted cards "IS" legacy, whatever you like it or not, it is a matter of fact. Take a Deck like Stoneblade, remove LoA, Ancestral, Time Walk, Mox & Lotus, Mystical Tutor, now add back in Brainstorm 2,3 & 4 and the Vintage version of the deck looks a lot like the Legacy version of the same.

The power level of vintage is defined by broken plays.
I have no problems with broken plays. Whatever that means at this point... I have explained my thoughts, read them again, in short I ll repeat:
1) I don't think we need a card like Trinisphere, extremely restricting the options to the point you can not play anything. Hence you didn't play you just sat across the table*.
2) A late game tinker kill with Y will and Time walk is no problem for me, but at that point it could just be another win condition, the blue player earned his win. The problem is that Tinker is also a turn 1 threat making the game last too short, hence again limiting the interaction to almost nihil. Do you have a stp or not? This is not magic, this is not Vintage.

You are not generating any counter arguments. Which is normal, because I don't believe there are any solid ones.

Note that I have not mentioned any other cards to be a problem. Time Vault, Jace, Bazaar, Workshop... I don't mind any of them, those are format defining and should be. My problem is with specific cards that have this extremely choking effect, you can't do your thing anymore, literally and this is not mid game, but from the very start.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 04:41:46 pm by Guli » Logged

brianpk80
2015 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 1333



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: May 02, 2013, 03:11:11 pm »

That is true.  The community can take that into account, but I assure you that the DCI and Wizards more generally does not promulgate policy on the basis of secondary market values.  They have said many times as much in public statements.

A "public statement" by a U.S. corporation has about as much credibility as a deed for an estate in Paraguay written on a paper towel.   

Quote
First of all, that's simply not true.  If that were true than Ancestral Recall would be unbeatable if it resolved, yet I've seen an increasing number of games in recent years where Ancestral Recall is trumped by the many other trumps in the format.  I can recall one particular instance in which a great player Ancestral Recalled, Misdirected the opponent's Ancestral, and still lost the game by turn 5.

Why not unrestrict Ancestral Recall then?  It's not "unbeatable," the metagame can "adapt," it would increase "diversity" in meaningful choices (micro-variations in the counter suite, amount of Snapcasters, etc.), and it wouldn't be "dominant" because some decks would still Top 8 without running blue, like Workshop.  Why not unrestrict Mox Pearl?  It's only going to disproportionately boost decks that run white.  If that's a problem, people could just play Null Rod.  Come to think of it, why restrict anything?  Maybe we should think about abolishing the 4-per-copy card limit. 

Quote
Second, even if that were true, that doesn't mean that Library isn't a safe unrestrict.  If Library decks were to perform well, then decks would quickly emerge to combat them.  

Under the criteria you yourself have enunciated, everything is a safe unrestrict including the cards you want restricted like Thirst for Knowledge.  See above.

Quote
Moreover, I believe that Control decks in the aggro role, like Grixis Control, would be able to defeat Landstill with opening Library far more than you are suggesting.  Think about a deck like Control Slaver or Meandeck Gifts circa 2005-2006 - those decks would DESTROY any Library deck in this format right now.

No.  Mana Drain and Force of Will are not enough to combat a deck running the same but with Flusterstorm, Mindbreak Trap, Cage, Mental Misstep, and 4 Libraries of Alexandria.   

Quote
Haha!

* If I truly had a 'unrestriction fetish,' then how can you reconcile my opposition to the unrestriction of Regrowth?  Or the fact that I opposed more unrestrictions than Kevin?  Or the fact that,  prior to the unrestriction of Regrowth, I described the B&R list as nearly perfect?  Or the fact that I support the restriction of Golem?  I assure I do not have an unrestriction fetish, but rather principled positions and experience based opinions (each of which inform the other).  

Saying "I'm principled" is not the same thing as being principled.

I reconcile the disorder in your positions by acknowledging that you have an unrestriction preference that is inconsistently applied.  Your reasoning does often contradict itself; for instance, a few weeks ago older players who remembered the heyday of Balance should be disqualified on account of bias, but today it's the new players who wouldn't remember Library of Alexandria whose arguments must be discredited.   Your criteria for restriction would encompass Force of Will (dominance, consolidation) but instead you express concerns about Regrowth that is likely to meet none.  Sometimes when convenient, you switch to a paradigm where everything is "subjective" and nothing can be true since everything is relative.  Cards didn't have "inherent" strength last month, only context, but today Library of Alexandria "is weaker than many cards that are already unrestricted."  And somehow degenerate is subjective but fun can be mechanically defined.  These arguments are all over the map.  Having admitted you get "joy" from unrestricting cards while manifesting disregard for the shop owners and players negatively affected, the criteria for unrestriction fetishism is met. 

Quote
* I DO get joy from unrestricting cards -- from the increase in meaningful choices that arise from having more design options in the format.  Let's not underestimate the utility derived from having more card/deck options.  

I thought it's always been understood that as the window of playable cards moves up the pyramid, the fewer but more powerful ones crowd the field.  If one wanted to increase design options, stretching the window downward would be the correct approach.   

Quote
I fully embrace the brokenness that so many others find to be a problem.  I am not in the slightest concerned that some people are wrongly and foolishly embarrassed by this element of the format.  Why?  Because at the end of the day, this is a skill format.  The same players, over and over again, are top performers.  The correlation between skill and performance is so patently obvious that no serious person could deny it.  

Right, because some percentage of all games still gives latitude the use of skill while in others, it's irrelevant due to the die roll or a degenerate restricted win condition.  The results reflect an accumulation of instances where skill matters, since those instances are diminished rather than outright eradicated. 

Quote
* The growth of this format is and has forever been circumscribed not by DCI policy, but Wizards reprint policy.   That is beyond our control.   The trajectory of Type I/Vintage was set well over a decade ago, and it is far too late in the day to try other means to fix it now.  

No.  The reprint policy has been in effect since 1996 and the introduction of proxies in the early 2000's is what led to a huge revival that came to a screeching halt & reversal in 2008 for reasons having nothing to do with reprints. 

Quote
I firmly believe that if this format had proper support it would reveal itself, finally, as the best format, even with all the supposed "degeneracy."  Incidentally, Library would not contribute to it.  Nor, do I believe, would Balance.  Balance is analogous to Mind Twist in Legacy.   Both innocuous but banned/restricted based on fear.  ...
Any perceived degeneracy is just that: perceived, and not real.  It's based on no less than superstition and myth about Magic.  My goal is to promote the format by selling it as it is.  It would be far more foolish -- and disingenuous -- for me to pretend that the format is not what it is than to highlight those elements as its selling point.  
I think the future of this format's success does not hinge upon making Vintage seem less degenerate, but rather the opposite: confronting its degeneracy, and then persuading people that in spite of this prevailing reality, the format is ultimately fair because it is ultimately skill intensive.   It is degenerate relative to other formats, but ultimately fair.   

So the plan is to lure in potential players by insulting them.  They're not sophisticated enough to understand that the format where skill independent coin flips and auto-wins determine the victor most often is the "best" venue for skill intensity and ultimate fairness.  The ubiquitous and reasonable perception that mismanagement has made the sad caricature of Vintage a reality since 2008 is invalid because it's based on fear and "superstition."  I see.  And instead of trying to remedy anything, we'll wait for Vintage to spontaneously "reveal" itself in its true glorious form which happens to be the one that matches your own perception and all of its idiosyncrasies.  This is a recipe for failure.   

Quote from: Guli
The problem is that Tinker is also a turn 1 threat making the game last too short, hence again limiting the interaction to almost nihil. Do you have a stp or not? This is not magic, this is not Vintage.

Agreed.  The more shallow a game becomes, the less reason there is for playing the game.  I think it's safe to say that everyone who plays the format is intelligent and enjoys interactive strategy games.  When people complain that certain elements of it have become too dumbed down or random, that is a legitimate gripe.  Trying to banish people to Legacy or god forbid Standard is not a good response.   
Logged

"It seems like a normal Monk deck with all the normal Monk cards.  And then the clouds divide...  something is revealed in the skies."
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 02, 2013, 03:54:16 pm »

That is true.  The community can take that into account, but I assure you that the DCI and Wizards more generally does not promulgate policy on the basis of secondary market values.  They have said many times as much in public statements.

A "public statement" by a U.S. corporation has about as much credibility as a deed for an estate in Paraguay written on a paper towel.    

It nonetheless remains the case that the DCI does not and has never made decisions based upon secondary market considerations.

Quote

Quote
First of all, that's simply not true.  If that were true than Ancestral Recall would be unbeatable if it resolved, yet I've seen an increasing number of games in recent years where Ancestral Recall is trumped by the many other trumps in the format.  I can recall one particular instance in which a great player Ancestral Recalled, Misdirected the opponent's Ancestral, and still lost the game by turn 5.

Why not unrestrict Ancestral Recall then?  It's not "unbeatable," the metagame can "adapt," it would increase "diversity" in meaningful choices (micro-variations in the counter suite, amount of Snapcasters, etc.), and it wouldn't be "dominant" because some decks would still Top 8 without running blue, like Workshop.  Why not unrestrict Mox Pearl?  It's only going to disproportionately boost decks that run white.  If that's a problem, people could just play Null Rod.  Come to think of it, why restrict anything?  Maybe we should think about abolishing the 4-per-copy card limit.  

Ancestral Recall would create a dominant deck, I believe.  If not that, it would be a dominant tactic that warps the entire field around it, just like Scroll did appearing in 42% of top 8s, where decks that don't have 4 Ancestral can't win.  

Quote

Quote
Second, even if that were true, that doesn't mean that Library isn't a safe unrestrict.  If Library decks were to perform well, then decks would quickly emerge to combat them.  

Under the criteria you yourself have enunciated, everything is a safe unrestrict including the cards you want restricted like Thirst for Knowledge.  See above.


Not at all.   Thirst satisfies the most important criteria I've announced for restriction and keeping cards restricted: creation of a dominant deck.

Library decks are actually easy to combat by comparison.  There are many strategies that, in the hands of decent players, would crush Landstill with 4 Libraries.  

Quote

Quote
Moreover, I believe that Control decks in the aggro role, like Grixis Control, would be able to defeat Landstill with opening Library far more than you are suggesting.  Think about a deck like Control Slaver or Meandeck Gifts circa 2005-2006 - those decks would DESTROY any Library deck in this format right now.

No.  Mana Drain and Force of Will are not enough to combat a deck running the same but with Flusterstorm, Mindbreak Trap, Cage, Mental Misstep, and 4 Libraries of Alexandria.    


Control Slaver decks with 4 Thirst would also have those tools if modernized, and would eat Landstill alive.

Quote

Quote
Haha!

* If I truly had a 'unrestriction fetish,' then how can you reconcile my opposition to the unrestriction of Regrowth?  Or the fact that I opposed more unrestrictions than Kevin?  Or the fact that,  prior to the unrestriction of Regrowth, I described the B&R list as nearly perfect?  Or the fact that I support the restriction of Golem?  I assure I do not have an unrestriction fetish, but rather principled positions and experience based opinions (each of which inform the other).  

Saying "I'm principled" is not the same thing as being principled.

I reconcile the disorder in your positions by acknowledging that you have an unrestriction preference that is inconsistently applied.  Your reasoning does often contradict itself; for instance, a few weeks ago older players who remembered the heyday of Balance should be disqualified on account of bias, but today it's the new players who wouldn't remember Library of Alexandria whose arguments must be discredited.  

I didn't say that their opinions should be disqualified, just qualified.  I simply said that I believe some of the opposition of older players to considering Balance comes from the old-associations/fears/frames regarding Balance.  That doesn't mean a person's view is disqualified -- just that it needs to be put in perspective or perhaps qualified.  

Quote
Your criteria for restriction would encompass Force of Will (dominance, consolidation) but instead you express concerns about Regrowth that is likely to meet none.  

Force is not a dominant deck, but it is a dominant tactic.  Unlike dominant tactics like Merchant Scroll or Brainstorm, it does not create dominant decks, does it?  

My concern about Regrowth is what happens when/if Golem is restricted.  That's a justifiable concern.

Quote

Sometimes when convenient, you switch to a paradigm where everything is "subjective" and nothing can be true since everything is relative.  Cards didn't have "inherent" strength last month, only context, but today Library of Alexandria "is weaker than many cards that are already unrestricted."

In context, LoA is weaker than Bazaar or Jace.   In fact, Gifts is weaker than Jace as well.   That statement implies nothing about objective power, but is a measure of relative/contextual power in this metagame.

Quote

 And somehow degenerate is subjective but fun can be mechanically defined.  


I never said fun can be mechanically defined, but there are elements that are -- we know -- constitutive elements to fun:

*  If players do not have meaningful deck choices, they will not have fun.

* if players do not have meaningful opportunities to make in-game decisions, they will not have fun.

We can define elements of fun by knowing what makes games unfun.   Meaningful choice is, aside from aesthetics and art and flavor -- the core of what makes Magic fun, but does not encompass or totally define the universe of fun in Magic.  

You are confusing a totalizing definition with the ability to identify some necessary/requisite elements.

For more, see my footnote at the end of this post.

Quote

These arguments are all over the map.  Having admitted you get "joy" from unrestricting cards while manifesting disregard for the shop owners and players negatively affected, the criteria for unrestriction fetishism is met.  

that doesn't make sense.  If I was an unrestriction fetishist, then I would not want to see Golem restricted.

Quote

Quote
* I DO get joy from unrestricting cards -- from the increase in meaningful choices that arise from having more design options in the format.  Let's not underestimate the utility derived from having more card/deck options.  

I thought it's always been understood that as the window of playable cards moves up the pyramid, the fewer but more powerful ones crowd the field.  If one wanted to increase design options, stretching the window downward would be the correct approach.    


False.  that is a widely understood myth.   It is sometimes true that restrictions open up more choices, but it is equally true that sometimes unrestrictions open up more options.  See Fact or Fiction, Enlightened Tutor, and Chrome Mox.

Sometimes restrictions actually create less options.  A good example: right now there are 100 or so artifacts that cost 3-6 that are playable simply because Mishra's Workshop exists.  Restricting Workshop would make many, but not all, unplayable in Vintage.  

The rule you announce is not true.  Restrictions sometimes create a larger card pool (thirst) and sometimes create a smaller card pool.  Sometimes unrestrictions create a larger card pool, and sometimes a smaller card pool.  

Quote
Quote
I fully embrace the brokenness that so many others find to be a problem.  I am not in the slightest concerned that some people are wrongly and foolishly embarrassed by this element of the format.  Why?  Because at the end of the day, this is a skill format.  The same players, over and over again, are top performers.  The correlation between skill and performance is so patently obvious that no serious person could deny it.  

Right, because some percentage of all games still gives latitude the use of skill while in others, it's irrelevant due to the die roll or a degenerate restricted win condition.  The results reflect an accumulation of instances where skill matters, since those instances are diminished rather than outright eradicated.  


I actually believe Vintage/Type I to be the most skill intensive format -- and have always believed that.   The presence of game breaking plays (aside from Golem/Chalice) does not reduce the skill in this format like you say.  If it did, then the best players woudln't consistently win.

Here's the key: alot of people seek games where players, through grindy interaction, can leverage their skill to win games by not where opponent's make blunders, but by overall superior play, the subtle accumulation of small advantages.  

Vintage, more so than any other format, rewards players for deck selection/metagaming skills -- for finding a deck and tuning that deck to defeat an accurately forecasted metagame.  

People looking for the former skill set complain when Vintage is actually about the latter.   Yes, Vintage has a ridicullous amount of tactical and strategic depth -- as any one of my Burning Tendrils reports illustrates -- but the most important skill in the format is deck selection and deck design, I believe. 

I have never lost a Type I/Vintage tournament that I did not believe was my own fault for losing -- either because I played the wrong deck or made in-game play mistakes.   I cannot say the same thing for other formats.  

 
Quote
* The growth of this format is and has forever been circumscribed not by DCI policy, but Wizards reprint policy.   That is beyond our control.   The trajectory of Type I/Vintage was set well over a decade ago, and it is far too late in the day to try other means to fix it now.  

No.  The reprint policy has been in effect since 1996 and the introduction of proxies in the early 2000's is what led to a huge revival that came to a screeching halt & reversal in 2008 for reasons having nothing to do with reprints.  [/quote]

Completely false.  As you know from my history of vintage series, the reprint policy set the format on a course of permanent stagnation and marginal relevance.  This is why almost immediately following it, Wizards stopped supporting Type I, and TOs followed suit.  

The revival of the format was doomed before it began because it was spurred in large part by SCG who decided to support the format.   That resulted increased demand, despite proxies, for a limited supply and the inexorable rise of prices beyond which people would buy into the format.   SCG's abandonment of Vintage is the proximate cause of Vintage's subsequent decline, just as it was a major reason for its brief resurgence.   Legacy has had a similar trajectory and is headed for a similar fate.  Force of Will, thanks to Legacy, is now $100 on SCG.  

Quote
I firmly believe that if this format had proper support it would reveal itself, finally, as the best format, even with all the supposed "degeneracy."  Incidentally, Library would not contribute to it.  Nor, do I believe, would Balance.  Balance is analogous to Mind Twist in Legacy.   Both innocuous but banned/restricted based on fear.  ...
Any perceived degeneracy is just that: perceived, and not real.  It's based on no less than superstition and myth about Magic.  My goal is to promote the format by selling it as it is.  It would be far more foolish -- and disingenuous -- for me to pretend that the format is not what it is than to highlight those elements as its selling point.  
I think the future of this format's success does not hinge upon making Vintage seem less degenerate, but rather the opposite: confronting its degeneracy, and then persuading people that in spite of this prevailing reality, the format is ultimately fair because it is ultimately skill intensive.   It is degenerate relative to other formats, but ultimately fair.  

So the plan is to lure in potential players by insulting them.  They're not sophisticated enough to understand that the format where skill independent coin flips and auto-wins determine the victor most often is the "best" venue for skill intensity and ultimate fairness.

[/quote]

that's right.   When players look at Vintage and see Tinker or Time vault, which are salient, they conclude that the format cannot be skill intensive because these are "donk" plays.  Therefore, they stop analyzing the format to understand the deeper patterns and to observe the strong correllation between skill and performance.   They don't take the time to better understand how these tactics may be combatted or answered. Etc.

Quote

 The ubiquitous and reasonable perception that mismanagement has made the sad caricature of Vintage a reality since 2008

Since mid-2008, the format has actually been managed better, I would argue, than in its 15 year history before that.   I would like to know how it has been mismanaged since.  

Quote
is invalid because it's based on fear and "superstition."

What I'm saying is invalid and based on myths is the idea that a format as fast, broken and full of ridiculous trumps as Vintage isn't a fair, deeply skill intensive format.  People aren't accustomed to the speed and powerful tactics that Vintage offers and therefore scoff and dismiss it without understanding it.  

Quote

 I see.  And instead of trying to remedy anything, we'll wait for Vintage to spontaneously "reveal" itself in its true glorious form which happens to be the one that matches your own perception and all of its idiosyncrasies.  This is a recipe for failure.  


Agreed -- but only because -- although it's necessary -- it's insufficient.  Vintage is limited by the reserved list.   if Vintage begins to thrive on Magic Online with power nine, then my vision might come to fruition Smile

Quote

Quote from: Guli
The problem is that Tinker is also a turn 1 threat making the game last too short, hence again limiting the interaction to almost nihil. Do you have a stp or not? This is not magic, this is not Vintage.

Agreed.  The more shallow a game becomes, the less reason there is for playing the game.  I think it's safe to say that everyone who plays the format is intelligent and enjoys interactive strategy games.  When people complain that certain elements of it have become too dumbed down or random, that is a legitimate gripe.  Trying to banish people to Legacy or god forbid Standard is not a good response.    

I actually disagree.  I think that's the essence of Vintage.   Vintage is about huge threats and situational and sometimes narrow answers, and the back and forth around them.    It's about Oath and Cage, and Bob and Bolt, Bazaar and leyline, and tinker and hurkyl's/STP , etc.  

I think that's where the game begins, not ends.  When Dredge is facing a Leyline of the Void, that's the when the game begins -- that's when the real interaction -- the dynamic back and forth as each player tries to destroy/protect their answer with draw, card advantage, and good deck design.  

The problem comes in when there is *no* opportunity to meaningfully interact - as there often isn't in the case of Golem/Chalice on the play.  


***

As an addendum to the "fun" question, here is a post I wrote a while back on what makes a format fun:

Quote

What makes a format fun?

1) People need to feel that they have meaningful choices.  

This has several key sub elements, each of which is very important:

a) they have meaningful deck choices, and not circumscribed to certain colors or strategies.

b) they have meaningful card choices, meaning that the design decisions they make, matter

c) that the choices they make within a game influence the outcome of the game, from technical play to sideboarding.

These elements all make Magic an intellectual game, and not a game of luck. They make it a game of skill and outsmarting your opponent.

Games that end on turn one violate (1)(c).  Formats dominated by a single archetype or tactic violate (1)(a) and (1)(b) respectively.

"Meaningful  choices" has at least three elements:

1) It means that there are valid options.  (that is, there is not really one only valid choice, and the others are clearly invalid or options;  Example: playing stompy in Vintage is not a valid option)
2) it means that the decision to choose one option or another has an influence on the outcome of the game.
3) It means that logic, reason, or some sort of analytical reasoning process can be applied to aid in those decisions.

All three elements have to be present to be 'meaningful'


2) Games Must play out differently over time.   (Replayability)

This is important because of replayability.  It's not fun to do the same thing over and over again in exactly the same way.   However, some patterns are important so that people can cue into them and learn from them.  

This really isn't a problem for Magic though, since you play different opponent's each round.  It's only a problem when everyone plays the same deck.

If you just play the same thing over and over again, then (1) is violated, since you dno't really make meaningful decisions.

Come to think of it, I think all of the things that make Magic formats fun sort of can be subsumed under (1).

3) Aesthetics/flavor/themes - people enjoy fantasy elements

Why do people play a format?

The reasons people play a format include:

* It is well supported in terms of opportunities to play it.
* it is well supported in terms of prize support or financial incentives to participate.
* People are familiar with the format, and thus confident in their ability to compete
* people have played in tournaments of that format before, and thus are confident in their ability to compete
* The format is financially accessible
* the format is financially accessible, and the cards themselves are accessible through trade or purchase
* the format is financially accessible in the sense that the cards won't plummet in value once used, and so the investment isn't a waste
* their friends play the format, so they have someone to test with and prepare, so that they might become confident in their ability to compete, which implicates whether their friends find the format financially accessible.
* how long they've been playing the format -- their expertise and knowledge with the format.   This increases their confidence in their abiliy to compete.
* availabilty of information regarding the format.   This increases one's confidence in the ability to compete
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 04:41:16 pm by Smmenen » Logged

oshkoshhaitsyosh
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 882



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: May 02, 2013, 04:54:22 pm »

This argument is silly.

This format is not as fast as it used to be thanks to my landstill piles and bomberman

Library would be dominant in blue decks. Landstill would have wastelands to fight opposing libraries and there own to abuse. I wouldn't want to see the format with 4...

I had great success smashing slaver decks with landstill. This is just a dumb and heavily faulted argument full of bias and opinions...

That's all I have to say



As far as the podcast goes I haven't listened to it yet, but I will admit I liked the last one I listened to and that was my first one I had ever listened to. So I'm sure this one will be similar. It's cool that you guys devote time to do things like this. Critics will be critics but the fact is they aren't doing set reviews and such so who are they...Thanks dudes
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 04:57:19 pm by oshkoshhaitsyosh » Logged

Team Josh Potucek
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 02, 2013, 05:47:27 pm »

Unfortunately, we don't have great data to measure the effects of a 4 Library environment, so it is only natural that any speculation would be rooted in opinions rather than evidence.  However, those opinions are informed by experience.  

It's my opinion that a 4 Library Vintage environment would not be dominated by Library decks in terms of statistical % of Top 8s.   I've gone through a litany of reasons why, so i won't recap them all.  As Kevin mentioned in the podcast, there are far more answers to Library than ever before (and I didn't even mention cards like Back to Basics, Magus of the Moon, etc).  More importantly, it's my opinion that a  4 Library Landstill decks can easily be defeated by other strategies.  

It's also my opinion that a 4 Library Landstill deck in the environment would be a healthy Vintage environment in the particular sense of a diversity of strategic options.    If you would like, it might be worth actually putting together a 4 Library Landstill deck, and I will put together a deck I think can defeat it, and we can test my theory Smile  I don't typically make offers like that, but I think this would be fun because I have a particular tempo deck in mind  Smile
« Last Edit: May 02, 2013, 06:06:47 pm by Smmenen » Logged

oshkoshhaitsyosh
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 882



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: May 02, 2013, 06:10:11 pm »

Unfortunately, we don't have great data to measure the effects of a 4 Library environment, so it is only natural that any speculation would be rooted in opinions rather than evidence.  However, those opinions are informed by experience.  

It's my opinion that a 4 Library Vintage environment would not be dominated by Library decks in terms of statistical % of Top 8s.   I've gone through a litany of reasons why, so i won't recap them all.  As Kevin mentioned in the podcast, there are far more answers to Library than ever before (and I didn't even mention cards like Back to Basics, Magus of the Moon, etc).  More importantly, it's my opinion that a  4 Library Landstill decks can easily be defeated by other strategies.  

It's also my opinion that a 4 Library Landstill deck in the environment would be a healthy Vintage environment in the particular sense of a diversity of strategic options.    If you would like, it might be worth actually putting together a 4 Library Landstill deck, and I will put together a deck I think can defeat it, and we can test my theory Smile  I don't typically make offers like that, but I think this would be fun because I have a particular tempo deck in mind  Smile


Haha that would be fun! I'm not even sure if all 4 make the main deck. I don't really care if it gets unrestricted TBH...People will adapt or suffer the consequences and lose. I had to adapt my landstill lists to beat early lodestone golems (3 bolts 1 dismember), so I don't see why people couldn't adapt to library. I would be happy to see Golem be restricted before Library unrestricted...
Logged

Team Josh Potucek
brianpk80
2015 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 1333



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: May 02, 2013, 09:40:35 pm »

Ancestral Recall would create a dominant deck, I believe.  If not that, it would be a dominant tactic that warps the entire field around it, just like Scroll did appearing in 42% of top 8s, where decks that don't have 4 Ancestral can't win.  

There are a lot of problems with this "dominant deck" criterion that should go without saying but I'll state them anyway. 

-It's nearly impossible to determine whether 30%, 31%, 35%, 40%, or 55% et. al. is the appropriate threshold. 
-Differentiating decks from one another can likewise be nebulous.  IE "the 4 Ancestral deck with 4 Regrowths is a different deck than the Ancestral deck with 4 Snapcasters, and they're both different decks than the one with 4 of each."  You know eventually someone's going to add a Vampiric Tutor and pretend that that revolutionizes the archetype.   
-The results we get from data is so corrupted by small sample sizes and other factors like people's subjective favorite archetypes that it's statistically meaningless. 

Quote
Control Slaver decks with 4 Thirst would also have those tools if modernized, and would eat Landstill alive.

Your original point was that the builds from 2006 would ravage it, which is clearly not correct. 

Quote
Force is not a dominant deck, but it is a dominant tactic.  Unlike dominant tactics like Merchant Scroll or Brainstorm, it does not create dominant decks, does it?  

Force of Will has been the lynchpin of the most dominant decks in the format for a decade now.  Please tell me this isn't news to you.  Wink

Quote
that doesn't make sense.  If I was an unrestriction fetishist, then I would not want to see Golem restricted.

Golem interferes with your combo decks that benefit most from the unrestrictions you advocate. 

Quote
I actually believe Vintage/Type I to be the most skill intensive format -- and have always believed that.   The presence of game breaking plays (aside from Golem/Chalice) does not reduce the skill in this format like you say.  If it did, then the best players woudln't consistently win.

I agree that it's the most skill intensive format and the one with the steepest learning curve.  People play the format because X% of the time, you can put those skills to use and it's fantastic.  On the other hand however, the instances where "so easy a Kardashian could do it" plays like Tinker or Vault determine the game are bugs, not features.  You're arguing that the level of sophistication and strategy that transpires in Vintage outside of those no-brainers is rewarding enough to outweigh the downside.  I don't disagree with that.  But let's not kid ourselves and pretend that the coin-flip degeneracy is a selling point.  People love the format despite them, not because of them.   

Quote
When players look at Vintage and see Tinker or Time vault, which are salient, they conclude that the format cannot be skill intensive because these are "donk" plays.  Therefore, they stop analyzing the format to understand the deeper patterns and to observe the strong correllation between skill and performance.   They don't take the time to better understand how these tactics may be combatted or answered. Etc.

It's like selling a beautiful property infested with rats.  Rather than exterminating the rats, you want to insist to the buyer that the house is so gorgeous that they'll learn to love it even with the infestation and maybe even because of it. 
Logged

"It seems like a normal Monk deck with all the normal Monk cards.  And then the clouds divide...  something is revealed in the skies."
Smmenen
2007 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 6392


Smmenen
View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: May 03, 2013, 04:08:35 am »

Ancestral Recall would create a dominant deck, I believe.  If not that, it would be a dominant tactic that warps the entire field around it, just like Scroll did appearing in 42% of top 8s, where decks that don't have 4 Ancestral can't win.  
There are a lot of problems with this "dominant deck" criterion that should go without saying but I'll state them anyway.  

If metagame dominance isn't a legitimate or valid criterion for restriction, then there is none.  There is probably no more universally agreed upon criteria for restricting or banning cards in any Magic format than this particular criteria, using DCI policy to neuter a dominant deck.  It is the single criteria that has been universally applied across formats and across time.   Almost every other criteria can be contested.   A turn one kill format might be acceptable to some players, but the idea of a deck that simply dominates the metagame?  When a deck cannot be defeated by the metagame in a game as dynamic as Magic, that is the one criteria upon which even the most hard core libertarian, anti-restriction ‘fetishist’ must concede the need for outside intervention.  It is so singularly unique and broadly validated in game theory that we can cite Sirlin in support of it.   In fact, that’s the only criteria in which Sirlin’s famous manifesto supports restriction or banning.  

Going back to the “meaningful choice” framework I set out in the previous post, with a dominant deck, there can be no meaningful choice of deck, and therefore no fun except for people who enjoy mirror matches with that particular archetype.

The problems you cite, which I will address, in no way undermine the validity of DCI action in response to a dominant deck.   All they do is speak to the difficulty of identify a precise standard or applying it.  That is not surprising.   Precision in almost any domain of life, from classifying organisms in biology to defining words in linguistics to  applying standards of law, are always constestable and contested.   That’s natural and ubiquitious, but does not undermine the validity of the underlying idea that the DCI has, and should, deploy its powers to neuter or weaken “dominant decks.”   Nor , as I will argue in more detail shortly, does the difficulty of identifying a precise threshold or even articulating a precise standard prevent or undermine the DCI's ability to make reasoned judgments, which are well within it's policymaking authority.  The DCI need not have scientific certainty or precision to apply this concept.  

Quote
-It's nearly impossible to determine whether 30%, 31%, 35%, 40%, or 55% et. al. is the appropriate threshold.

I’ve used this analogy many times in the past, but the closest analog to “dominance” in Magic is “monopoly power” in antitrust law and economics.  Just as dominant decks exercise their power over the metagame, monopolies exercise their power over markets.   Both economics and law have difficulty, at the margin, defining precisely what constitutes a monopoly and monopoly power.   Defining the relevant market and defining the measures of power are always difficult, contested, but hardly insurmountable.  

To give but one example from antitrust law will illustrate this.   In early applications of the Sherman act, the Supreme Court ruled that monopoly power had to be in the 80% of the market range or above, but did not say that that was the minimum threshold.   Courts had found that far less market power could still constitute “monopoly” power.    But it has been a source of litigation and discussion ever sense.  Is 60% market power monopoly power?  40%?  These questions remained unanswered.   

On the other hand, identifying the precise threshold is not really necessary.  One can simply look over time in Vintage and observe patterns using statistical data.  When the format becomes far out of whack compared to its baseline – when a deck reaches 30% or more, I think we are probably in the realm of a dominant deck.   That’s because it is very difficult for a deck – even a very popular deck – to reach more than 20% of Vintage Tops 8 on a regular basis.   In Legacy, it’s virtually impossible.   When I was writing Legacy metagame reports for SCG, there were often times in which no Legacy deck was more than 10% of the field or Top 8s.  30% in a format like Vintage, with its myriad constraints, certainly verges on dominant status.  40%+ I would say definitely satisfies it, if it is sustained for more than 6 months.  30-40% is more debatable.  But we need not resolve that issue with certainty.  All we need to do is let the DCI make an informed judgment with knowledge of the baseline.  If they restricted something on the claim that a deck was 'dominant" after putting up 33% of Top 8s for 6 months, I would not find that to be an unreasonable judgment.   They are the policymaker, and are entitled to make that judgment.

 
Quote
-Differentiating decks from one another can likewise be nebulous.  

Again, no more so than the myriad problems people have always had classifying things in life.  Consider the work of librarians in classifying literature and non-fiction into various systems.  Or, more profoundly, the difficulty that biological scientists, like Carolus Linnaeuss, who created the whole “Family, Genius, Order, Phylum, etc” system had devising classification schemes BEFORE the discovery of DNA.  Organisims that are not even related, but appeared to be so based on physical chracteristics, were grouped.  

Don’t get me started on the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)  Every new version of that manual produces justifiable angst and consternation.   Classifying Magic decks is peanuts by comparison.  

As someone who, for years for SCG and even for QS & Eternal Central, was asked to organize metagame data and engage in the difficult task of classifying decks (don’t forget, Wizards of the Coast sent me 2200 decklists from GP Madrid, which I was organized and classified), I will admit that classification is difficult, but not impossible.  There is no perfect classification, which means all classifications can be contested.  But what there is are reasonable ways to make classifications sufficient for the purpose of making reasonable policy judgments and decisions.   That's all that matters.  

Moreover, it is possible,  make reasonable claims about what constitutes an archetype and what doesn’t.   It is possible, after looking at tons of data, to see fairly clear, recurring patterns and to identify key configurations.  One of the things I used to do for SCG is build composites.  This was something Phil Stanton started, but I continued because it aided us so much in classification.  It helps us see patterns and clusters of relationships, including dominant synergies and variants.  Examples:

 http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17071-So-Many-Insane-Plays-The-Anatomy-of-Vintage-Tezzeret.html

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/16789_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Vintage_Tezzeret_Dissected.html

To illustrate from the latter:

Quote
My analysis of the composite list and a comparison to the previous composite list uncovers some revealing trends about where Tezzeret is heading and where it might go from here.
The tournament data can be accessed in the appendix. Here are the results:
Unanimous (or Virtually Unanimous) Card Choices
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Black Lotus
1 Demonic Tutor
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Polluted Delta
1 Sol Ring
1 Tezzeret The Seeker
4 Force of Will
3 Mana Drain (36/37)
1 Vampiric Tutor (36/37)
1 Time Walk (36/37)
1 Voltaic Key (36/37)
1 Underground Sea (36/37)
1 Flooded Strand (36/37)
1 Time Vault (36/37)
1 Brainstorm (35/37)
2nd Polluted Delta (35/37)
1 Tinker (35/37)
1 Tolarian Academy (35/37)
2nd Flooded Strand (34/37)
2 Thirst For Knowledge (34/37)
2nd Underground Sea (34/37)
1 Yawgmoth’s Will (34/37)
The unanimous/near unanimous card choices are almost identical to the results last time around. The only major difference is that Tinker is now almost every list. The last time around it was only in 30 of the 37 lists. This should not be surprising. Tinker is an automatic inclusion.
1 Island (33/37)
3rd Thirst For Knowledge (33/37)
2nd Island/Snow-Covered Island (32/37)
1 Fact or Fiction (32/37)
4th Mana Drain (32/37)
1 Mana Crypt (32/37)
1 Mystical Tutor (32/37)
1 Sensei’s Divining Top (32/37)
Now we observe some major shifts. Mystical Tutor Fact or Fiction and Top appeared in much fewer decklists in the last set of results. Specifically they had appeared in 25 24 and 28 of 37 possible decklists respectively. Similarly Merchant Scroll jumped from appearing in 28 to 31 decklists out of a possible 37.

Quote

-The results we get from data is so corrupted by small sample sizes and other factors like people's subjective favorite archetypes that it's statistically meaningless.  

A common objection, but addressed by using larger sample sizes.  37 decks in my Tezzeret sample may not meet the standard for scientific perfection, but I’m not publishing in a peer reviewed journal.  The Federal Reserve and the DCI make policy decisions with data which is often imperfect.   37 samples is enough for us to draw reasonable inferences about what constitutes the most common key parts of the Tezzeret archetype and which features are outliers, for example.

Quote
Quote
Control Slaver decks with 4 Thirst would also have those tools if modernized, and would eat Landstill alive.
Your original point was that the builds from 2006 would ravage it, which is clearly not correct.  
No, my original point was the archetype, which was at peak power in 2006 and had 4 Thirst, would ravage Landstill.  I wasn't literally saying the exact list from 2006, but the archetype at the peak of its powers (meaning with full access to cards that are now restricted). Rich Shay or Demars with Control Slaver would clobber Landstill.  Not even close.

Quote
Quote
Force is not a dominant deck, but it is a dominant tactic.  Unlike dominant tactics like Merchant Scroll or Brainstorm, it does not create dominant decks, does it?  
Force of Will has been the lynchpin of the most dominant decks in the format for a decade now.  Please tell me this isn't news to you.  Wink
Totally disagree.  It’s been a popular tactic, but not the “lynchpin.”  

Quote
Quote
I actually believe Vintage/Type I to be the most skill intensive format -- and have always believed that.   The presence of game breaking plays (aside from Golem/Chalice) does not reduce the skill in this format like you say.  If it did, then the best players wouldn’t consistently win.
I agree that it's the most skill intensive format and the one with the steepest learning curve.  People play the format because X% of the time, you can put those skills to use and it's fantastic.  On the other hand however, the instances where "so easy a Kardashian could do it" plays like Tinker or Vault determine the game are bugs, not features.  You're arguing that the level of sophistication and strategy that transpires in Vintage outside of those no-brainers is rewarding enough to outweigh the downside

Aside from Chalice + Golem, there is no coin flip degeneracy in this format.  

Neither Time Vault or Tinker are coin flip degeneracy.   There are too many turn one/zero answers to both.  And they don’t typically win the game on turn one, with very, very rare exceptions (i.e. having Time Walk + Tinker on turn one or having 4 mana, Time Vault and Key on turn one).  
If I thought Time Vault was a problem for Vintage, I wouldn’t have advocated for it to be fixed, and asked Richard Garfield how it was supposed to work to finally persuade Wizards to fix it.   I wouldn’t have launched that crusade to remove power level errata, which was successful.  

I'm also tired of people bashing those plays.  While Tinker on turn one for Blightsteel might not be a great play, the situations that can arise out of it CAN be great.  The back and forth, jockying, decision trees, can be as intense as anything in the format.  

More broadly, I disagree with the binary you’ve set up – between the format you enjoy and the “bugs” in it.  The “bugs” are part of what makes the format so great.   Having huge, monster trumps is important, as it is the foundation on which the base level of interaction begins in this format.  I described this in the example of Bazaar + Leyline being where the “real game”begins.

Without these plays, much of the strategic depth of the format would be lost.  They aren't bugs because they are essential to the format's depth.  They are collateral consequences, if you'd like.  


Quote
.  I don't disagree with that.  But let's not kid ourselves and pretend that the coin-flip degeneracy is a selling point.  People love the format despite them, not because of them.  

First, there are people, myself included, who enjoy the range of strategic and tactical threats in the format.   I’m down with Tinker because I think there are plenty of answers to it.  

Second, you misconstrued my other point.  it is not that the cards you don’t like are the selling point.  That wasn’t what I was saying.  I was rejecting this idea:

Quote
It's probably a good time to think instead of measures that can make Type 1 more attractive to potential players rather than making it increasingly degenerate and embarrassing.

I see absolutely no reason to be embarrassed by anything in this format, and it is that attitude, as much as anything in the format itself, which perpetuates the many myths and stereotypes about it.   Moreover, by complaining about those features of the format, you legitimate the greviences of bad or new players who fall prey to those tactics.  Instead, it should be the responsibility of VIntage players to explain why those players are *not* degenerate or unfair.  

My point was not that we should *sell* the format on plays like Tinker, but that we need to be up front about it, and we need to explain how those plays are actually fair.   We need to explain, at the outset, that Vintage has a bunch of really seemingly broken things, but that are actually fair because there are so many answers to them – and once you’ve answered them, then the real interesting game begins.   That’s the key.  

Quote
Quote
When players look at Vintage and see Tinker or Time vault, which are salient, they conclude that the format cannot be skill intensive because these are "donk" plays.  Therefore, they stop analyzing the format to understand the deeper patterns and to observe the strong correllation between skill and performance.   They don't take the time to better understand how these tactics may be combatted or answered. Etc.
It's like selling a beautiful property infested with rats.  Rather than exterminating the rats, you want to insist to the buyer that the house is so gorgeous that they'll learn to love it even with the infestation and maybe even because of it.  

What I’m saying is that when the buyer comes to the house, you don’t sweep the dirt under the rug.  

I absolutely contest the idea that Vintage is infested with rats.  What we need to do is a better job of helping players combat the primary tactical threats in the format, and then show how, once addressed, they lead to interesting matches.  

I think the DCI has done a brilliant job by any metagame measure managing the Banned and restricted list in the last 5 years.   The format is diverse, fun, and strategically interesting.  I don't know what you mean by exterminating the rats because I don't any.  You've complained about the management of the format, but I can hardly imagine how they could have done a better job with the same parameters.  
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 02:10:32 pm by Smmenen » Logged

brianpk80
2015 Vintage World Champion
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 1333



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: May 03, 2013, 07:50:07 pm »

That was surprisingly eloquent and dignified, Stephen.  I am impressed.  You acknowledged the legitimacy of the arguments made and brought up valid counterpoints without resorting to barren namedropping, curt dismissals, or shifting goalposts.  You deserve a foil Mayor of Avabruck.  

Quote from: Smennen
No, my original point was the archetype, which was at peak power in 2006 and had 4 Thirst, would ravage Landstill.  I wasn't literally saying the exact list from 2006, but the archetype at the peak of its powers (meaning with full access to cards that are now restricted). Rich Shay or Demars with Control Slaver would clobber Landstill.  Not even close.

I'm not seeing it.  No doubt, they are great players and it was a wonderful deck but I can't see why anyone would believe a control deck would consistently clobber another control deck running 4 Library of Alexandria.  LoA busts the control mirror wide open and Goblin Welder w/o Cavern of Souls doesn't seem like something likely to survive or resolve against Bolts, Explosives, Fire/Ice, Dismember.  It seems to me the opposite would be true.  If you used more measured language like "Slaver would give Landstill a good fight" I might be open to considering it, but "clobber" just has no application here.  

Quote
Aside from Chalice + Golem, there is no coin flip degeneracy in this format.  

Neither Time Vault or Tinker are coin flip degeneracy.   There are too many turn one/zero answers to both.  And they don’t typically win the game on turn one, with very, very rare exceptions (i.e. having Time Walk + Tinker on turn one or having 4 mana, Time Vault and Key on turn one).

There are turn one/zero answers to Golem+Chalice as well and you can expect that countermagic won't interfere unlike the case with blue randoms.  I understand that part of what excites you about the format is that any play no matter how dangerous has an available response, so presumably the skilled players and metagamers will benefit by tuning accordingly.  That's a positive, yes. The problem with Tinker/Vault and occasionally Oath of Druids is the same as the problem with Chalice+Golem however.  Regardless of how skilled or prepared one is, they reduce the game to that binary mode Kevin mentioned where the game is determined by a singleton threat/answer lottery, which in fact negates skill.
Logged

"It seems like a normal Monk deck with all the normal Monk cards.  And then the clouds divide...  something is revealed in the skies."
Samoht
Adepts
Basic User
****
Posts: 1392


Team RST


View Profile Email
« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2013, 11:28:28 pm »

I disagree with the views on the reaction of Tinker and its targets to BSC.  Tinker has gone down in playability since the consolidation of Tinker targets to BSC. Why? Because people have properly and accurately built their main deck to react to resolved Tinker -> BSC. As such, I disagree with Kevin's claim that nothing has changed about how resistant BSC has been since it's creation. Check results for the first year of its existence to now, the appearance and success of BSC is down, coupled with a smaller decrease in Tinker in general. Several Blue pilots have eschewed the plan, or changed their targets(to TV+K or Memory Jar).

To clarify what my original post in the other thread was indicating, through empirical evidence I have discovered Library of Alexandria to be a card that puts its controller in an almost insurmountably advantageous position in blue mirrors. Drawing a card every turn at the cost of playing an uncounterable land on one turn is decidedly powerful, hence the reason it was restricted. Dark Confidant is the closest approximation of this effect, though it is decidedly easier to deal with and has the cost of life for the free card. Other played card advantage engines are only usable one time(potentially 2 through Will or X through Regrowth/Will), whereas LoA is recurring. I played Keeper for years, and this card more than any other was the reason I was successful. I include Library in almost every blue deck that I build that is not playing Forbidden Orchard because of just how powerful it is. If I know Landstill/Keeper has access to 4 LoA, I have to take that into account. I believe that the best way to combat LoA is to play your own(as Crucible defeats and destructive plan), as all other methods would be difficult to resolve in the face of LoA. If I have to dilute my deck to compete with other Blue decks in this manner, Workshops and Dredge especially become infinitely more potent at their strategies by not having to concern themselves with some of the other cards played to combat them. I don't disagree with there being a cost benefit analysis in un-restricting the strategy, I just don't think that it is healthy to weaken blue and bolster Shops/Dredge. The format is very balanced and diverse right now and this could be the beginning of blue getting pushed down for no reason.

As far as Land Mox Bob being a counter to LoA, I really think you're wrong. I don't know how you got to that point, but the Library player has 10 turns to find an answer to a 2/1 while keeping parity on cards. Once the 2/1 is dealt with, the advantage resumes.

Hymn to Taurach? Against Misdirections? Seems great. You guys are stellar with your commentary about inconsistency. It must just be the hobgoblin of us small minded folks.

Thwart/Daze are counter to what a LoA deck is going to be trying to do. Commandeer is a card that could easily be played, though not in large numbers. I haven't put together a list, but I can see other tempo style cheap/effective cards being very powerful as well.

I could go on, but we're so far apart in our reasoning and logic that I will just excuse myself from the discussion.

Logged

Char? Char you! I like the play.
-Randy Bueller

I swear I'll burn the city down to show you the light.

The best part of believe is the lie
Guli
Basic User
**
Posts: 1763


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: May 06, 2013, 08:26:26 am »

I disagree with the views on the reaction of Tinker and its targets to BSC.  Tinker has gone down in playability since the consolidation of Tinker targets to BSC. Why? Because people have properly and accurately built their main deck to react to resolved Tinker -> BSC. As such, I disagree with Kevin's claim that nothing has changed about how resistant BSC has been since it's creation. Check results for the first year of its existence to now, the appearance and success of BSC is down, coupled with a smaller decrease in Tinker in general. Several Blue pilots have eschewed the plan, or changed their targets(to TV+K or Memory Jar).
This is another reason to not have it exist in the first place, obviously there are enough tools blue players can use to play for the win. My argument is that I don't want to 'prepare' for a card like Tinker at all, in the first place. I want to prepare against cards like Show and Tell, Oath. These cards require more work and can create very tense and fun games. Turn 1 Tinker with Mana crypt or whatever is just something I don't want in any meta. 'It happens' is not a sufficient argument for me, neither is 'deal with it, this is the reality'. I already KNOW these things, I already prepare for something a lot of people are NOT playing anymore. So I have to pollute my deck for something that 'might' happen, but meanwhile people are playing it less and less... I can make my deck much better without having to prepare for such an unnecessary card and the games would still be very tight and tense.
Logged

CoffeeCup
Basic User
**
Posts: 39



View Profile Email
« Reply #59 on: May 06, 2013, 01:29:38 pm »

My argument is that I don't want to 'prepare' for a card like Tinker at all, in the first place. I want to prepare against cards like Show and Tell.

They made a format for that... it's called Legacy.  Neutral
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  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 0.124 seconds with 20 queries.