@smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:
Absolutely, but it is precisely that history that shows us how wrong and wrong-headed your preferred approach is.
LOL, harsh.
The Restricted List reached it's zenith in January, 2004, with 54 cards after years of over-restriction (it now sits comfortably at 46 cards).
In 1999, 18 cards were restricted in a single restriction announcement. Did 18 cards really need to be restricted that fall? Did Doomsday, Dream Halls, and Mind Over Matter really need to be restricted? No, but the DCI used your approach, of restricting cards on power level alone, without any reference to tournament play or results.
Oh, I must have missed the part where The Academy deck turned out to have been fringe, nearly absent from results, and largely celebrated by the community.
The consequence? Countless players were denied the opportunity to build interesting decks that they would have enjoyed. Imagine the Doomsday decks that could have been built before it was unrestricted in 2004! Imagine the Dream Halls decks that could have been tried.
Behold this tragedy.
Alone this Doomsday.
Forsaken these Dream Halls.
How we weep,
How we wail.
In my view, today's entrenched decadence is the product of years of official sustained neglect and an unchallenged hyperlibertarian narrative.
I would suggest, instead, it's a result of sustained engagement and a much more careful and nuanced undestanding of the game, metagame evolution, and better grasp of data. DCI management today - over all formats - is far more sophisticated than it was during the Type I era.
No one is buying it. The DCI's shameful neglect produced results that happened to coincide with your hyperlibertarian objectives, so you exalted their dereliction of duty as "prudence."
And I think it should be whatever length is necessary to maximize enjoyment. I'm not embarrassed by or apologetic for that perspective.
But how do we do that in a way that isn't predictably biased in favor of blue decks?
It's not for the benefit of "blue" decks. How did "blue decks" benefit from restricting Treasure Cruise, Dig through Time, Gitaxian Probe, Monastery Mentor, all of which I supported. "Blue decks" did not benefit from restricting Gush, a restriction campaign I refrained from joining out of humanitarian concern, namely the cruelty it would issue to you after you had just produced an extensive work on the card.
As I said above: "a preference for what you call "fairer" or less swingy games is really just a gussied up way of expressing prejudice against fast combo decks, Dredge, and Shops, and a preference for blue decks. A format more centered around decks like Bomberman, Landstill, Leo decks, etc. may be your idea of a good format, but it sounds like dispiriting to me."
The main problem with your approach, of giving primary weight to how decks "feel" and "interactivity" is that it's hopelessly biased against most of the Schools of Vintage Magic, especially those that aren't blue.
Really? Don't Dredge and Workshops benefit most from restricting Paradoxical Outcome? Aren't "blue decks" hurt the most by banning Treasure Cruise and Dig through Time (positions you yourself introduced not too long ago)?
This is an example of the delusion that Vintage players are divided into cults who only coldly pursue material self-interest in winning. I don't know where this falsehood originates.
@nanakini said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:
I also know the format has been around here for a long time and it's still alive, but I think it's probably very difficult for new players to get in and stay, because as soon as the excitement from playing such powerful cards wears off, there is not much left (at least for me).Really? There isn't much left? How about the most complex and intricate lines of play offered any format?
Oh dear, scolding, shaming, and blaming those who reject your vision. Where have I seen this before?
Rather consistent with your stated view that Vintage should not be a democratically organized format. Can I be The Mana Drain's official superdelegate?
@stormanimagus said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:
but I also don't want people to call for the pitchforks if they don't LIKE losing to a given strategy, especially if the reason they lose to that strategy more than their share is because they choose to play one of the decks with the weakest inherent match win % vs. said deck.
Mr. Smith, this cartoon logic and was rejected many times in the earlier part of this thread. Do you think I have a significant handicap in Vintage? Am I losing all of the time? Do you believe I am lying to about enjoyment of the game being extremely important to me? If so, then say it, because what you're insinuating is both delusional and insulting.
I have a very high win rate against Paradoxical Outcome; the card should be restricted. I play Treasure Cruise and Dig Through Time; they should have been banned. I have a favored Shop match-up most of the time, particularly on Druids. Trinisphere should be banned. Dredge is drawing 15 cards for {0} while drawing 3 cards for {U} is restriction-worthy. Allowing it to continue existing in its current form thwarts the game balance you purport to value.
It should be obvious from the most cursory reading of my arguments that they are not driven by a base desire to win more; I don't have that need. It's about qualitative experience. Even Stephen who disagrees with much of my philosophy at least understands what I am saying. Sheesh.
