SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?"

[Thewhitedragon69]

@wappla As primarily a Modern player now (I rarely play Vintage due to location, but the narrow options of viable decks is also a turnoff), I think you have a wrong view of diversity. In modern, there are 20ish linear decks, zoo/burn/GW CoCo/eldrazi/jund/death's shadow/etc. (all of which are viable depending on the meta), but there are also various combo decks, mill, lantern control, Esper control, Bant, Grixis, etc. There is real diversity (not an illusion).

Many cards are on a similar power level, but some are more powerful in certain builds and less so than others. Kalitas, for example, is a powerful creature in Jund. He is much less good in something like BW tokens. Vintage however...ancestral is just best in everything that taps islands, so there's no real thinking about what fits where when it comes to several staple cards.

Modern doesn't have the problem of people not knowing what is optimal...it's just that different lists can have different cards be optimal, and a card that is optimal in one strategy is just okay in another. Also there are a ton of solid decks that are viable choices to win any tourney. The entire color pie is equally competitive. It's not just blue splashing whatever support color. You can run into a billion different decks in a big tourney and your SB needs to really account for a lot of things (and your deck be fast enough or resilient enough to beat lots of other strategies). On the other hand, vintage basically has a big handful of cards that go in every deck and a chunk that is different depending on kill condition. Every blue deck runs ancestral, walk, FoW, (and lately gush), etc. Every shop deck runs thorn/chalice/golem, trini, etc. Vintage tourneys are basically a field of X workshops, gush decks, and bazaar...an occasional storm or oath deck in the mix.

You think in-game choices are all that matter, but many of us like deck building as much as the in-game. Modern also has a slew of in game choices outside of some super-linear aggro decks, but I disagree that in-game is all that matters. Winning with your own deck creation is also very gratifying as opposed to just grabbing whatever list so-and-so played and tweaking 2 cards. To me, that's letting someone else do the heavy lifting and claiming victory on the back of their work.

Side note, if you think your card choices/in-game decisions don't matter in Modern because you face one of 4 decks and lose no matter what, you have not been playing enough modern...at least not well. Play decisions matter a LOT in anything that's not all burn/creatures, of which there are a ton of choices. That's also where deck building choices come in - you need to build versatile decks that handle a lot.

I personally like being able to choose between one of 50 decks or building my own and being able to win a tourney. Having to pick between 7-8 deck choices to have any viable chance of winning is far more limiting to me. It seems you'd like a format of just 1 deck where the only decider of win/loss is how you play the deck. That's basically poker. And while I love poker, I also like games where I have choices and freedom to design outside of the game play. I don't like rock-paper-scissors. A format where a multitude of strategies and card choices are viable and equally powerful to the rest is a good thing IMO.

[wappla]

@ajfirecracker @BazaarOfBaghdad @Thewhitedragon69 Yes. I don't care at all about deck or archetype or card diversity. My ideal format is literally 75 card Delver mirrors. I am not joking.

But see I recognize I don't get to legislate B&R policy to fit my subjective ideals any more than you do. And unlike other people, I'm not arguing we change Vintage to fit my ideal format. The reason we use evidence like tournament results to make these decisions is because otherwise we're just arguing aesthetics.

And we can argue aesthetics all we want, but I think it's important for people to acknowledge that's exactly what they are doing, and that evidence doesn't justify hitting Monastery Mentor, Gush, Mental Misstep, Preordain, or Gitaxian Probe. There's a critical difference between something actually being oppressive and people saying it's oppressive. Calling a card too good does not make it so. Now, as I've said before, personally I wouldn't mind Mentor's restriction, but I also wouldn't mind if the format was 75 card Delver mirrors. And, importantly, I acknowledge no data exists to support changing the format in either of those ways.

If you're still not getting it, I would ask you to consider why you're fine with Oath of Druids being legal and yet you want to restrict Monastery Mentor. You have to have multiple sideboard cards to beat Oath, and yet everyone does it without complaining. Why are you fine being 0% against Dredge game 1 and dedicating seven or eight sideboard cards to the matchup? If you had even three sideboard cards dedicated to beating Mentor decks, you could beat Mentor decks. If Oath of Druids had been printed in Fate Reforged and Monastery Mentor had been printed in Exodus, everyone would be calling for Oath's restriction right now and hardly anyone would be playing Monastery Mentor.

It seems to me from this diversion in the thread that people not only want Monastery Mentor or assorted cards restricted, they also refuse to accept that such restrictions would be based only on aesthetic preference. I'm not asking you to change your mind, just to acknowledge the subjectivity of your position, and that all data we have support either keeping the status quo or restricting something from Workshops.

@Thewhitedragon69 You clearly don't understand my point. Modern doesn't have any more diversity than Vintage. There are a finite number of archetypes in Magic, and both formats have all of them. You don't get bonus points for having twenty aggro decks instead of one. That's false diversity. Like you said, you like to choose between one of 50 decks. That's why you play Modern. As I said before, we have different formats for a reason.

[ajfirecracker]

I think Bazaar should probably be restricted and most likely will be eventually. I think the claim that you have to devote a bunch of space to the Oath matchup is wrong and is based on the faulty assumption that Grafdigger's Cage targets Oath in particular.

[wappla]

forest, trees, etc

[Smmenen]

@ajfirecracker said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

There's nothing unfair about restricting Gush to promote other decks. Cards aren't people. There is no such thing as being unfair to Gush. There is such a thing as being unfair to (e.g.) Gush pilots, but if they are playing with the same restrictions as everyone else no unfairness would occur when Gush is restricted.

O Where, O Where has your Principle of Charity gone?

It's obvious that the phrase "unfair to Gush" was a synecdoche referring to Gush players or players who favor and enjoy/prefer Gush decks.
The quoted paragraph above is so logically tortured the last part doesn't even make sense. What does "playing with the same restrictions as everyone else mean?"

If Gush is restricted because a vocal segment of blue players who want to be able to play non-Gush decks without losing to Gush decks are lobbying the DCI to make it happen is not unfair to Gush players, then I don't know what is.

Yes, restricting Gush to open up space for other blue decks, like Control Slaver, as Rich said, is unfair to Gush players, if Gush does not meet standard or established criteria for restriction.

As I said in post 122: "In that case, it's the equivalent of crony capitalism: the policymaking captured by a powerful lobby. Thus, when the DCI restricts to neuter a predator strategy in the interests of proponents of thale prey strategy, it has a corrosive effect on the format."

It's a powerful segment of players using their power to influence the policy maker to remove a metagame threat rather than being forced to compete in the metagame like everyone else.

Your whole thing about group diversity and subgroup diversity is entirely arbitrary.

There is a remarkable carelessness in how you are representing my ideas. Not only is that not the distinction I've been drawing, but it's not one that I've ever mentioned before. Whether intentionally or not, you literally just made that up.

Go back and re-read post 29 in this thread, where I drew the key distinction between the two articulated objectives for which restricting Gush is a means towards that end. As I said there: " I've heard two separate descriptions of a problem. One is that the Gush Mentor deck is too good. Another is that Gush decks oppress other blue decks. Those are different goals with different means-end implications."

So, no, I'm not drawing a distinction between "group" diversity and "subgroup diversity." I'm not sure where you got that.

I'm drawing a distinction between: (1) restricting to rein in a dominant deck in the entire metagme (analogous to monopoly power in antitrust law, with Thirst for Knowledge being the paradigmatic example of this); and (2) restrictions because a deck is oppressive within a particular segment or sector of the metagame (such as "blue decks."

This is Chubby Rain's argument. He believes - and has said since last year - that Gush should be restricted because it pushes out other blue decks/strategies.

So, no, I am not drawing a distinction between groups and subgroups. I'm genuinely puzzled how you even came up with that distinction. I strongly encourage you to more carefully read, parse and study what I'm saying. If I'm not being clear, please ask for clarification, but I never, ever drew a distinction between groups and subgroups. I drew a distinction between the metagame writ large and specific sectors of groups of strategies within it.

If half the format is Gush and you restrict Gush and then half the format is split evenly among 3 strategically distinct blue decks (the other half being totally unchanged in this example) that's an increase in real top-level diversity.

If Gush were half of the format, it's restriction would be easily justified as a dominant deck. Recall, Thirst was just 45% of Top 8s and it was restricted as one of the most dominant decks of all time. So, there is no need to justify a deck that is half of the format on other grounds.

But it's not. Gush is not even close to Thirst's numbers. Gush was probably not even 25% of decks in the Bazaar of Moxen. My guess, having studied the data, is probably around 23%. It was, IIRC, just 22% of decks in the 2016 Vintage Championship metagame. It's been around 30% of MTGO dailies in January and February, but those numbers fluctuate from month to month. Still, 30% is nowhere need 50%, let alone 45%.

Still, I understand the point you are making. Let's suppose that Gush is 22-30% of Top 8s, and that restricting Gush will lead to 2 or more blue decks taking up that metagame space. That would appear to create more diversity in the format.

There are two problems with that:

First and foremost, if Gush is restricting, there is absolutely no guarantee that another dominant blue deck just won't rise to take it's place. If there is one thing we've known historically, it's that, eventually, one blue engine predominates (Fact, Gifts, Thirst, Gush, etc.) There is no obvious reason to think that restricting Gush would lead to the kind of diversity you describe. It's just as possible and likely that Gush is simply replaced by another similar "dominant" blue deck within the blue deck group.

There is a second and probably more significant problem. The logic you articulated, of restricting an oppressive deck within a subgroup to promote topline diversity, has no logical stopping point. Every deck, necessarily, displaces another deck, ad infinitum, to the end of the Vintage card pool.

This idea is probably most easy to see with cards, rather than decks. Printing Preordain pretty much removed any chance Sleight of Hand would have of seeing play. Restricting Preordain might create some space for Sleight of Hand to see play, but restricting Preordain to allow space for Sleight of Hand to see play has no endpoint. What about restricting Sleight of Hand so Opt or Serum Visions sees play? And so on.

Now just extend that concept to the deck level. Mishra's Workshop, Bazaar of Baghdad, and Oath of Druids are all cards you could restrict and enhance the top level diversity of the format, in the sense of opening up far more playable strategies than exited before, and that's why some players like Brian Demars have argued that those cards should be restricted.

But most Vintage players understand why they shouldn't be. Vintage is a free market, and the DCI should only step in when something can't be regulated by market (read: metagame) counterforces.

Restricting Gush could open up space for other blue decks, but, if that restriction is not based upon objective criteria or clearly definiable and delimited boundaries, then there is no limit to that policy. Why stop at Gush? Whatever arises up next will merit restriction, and so on.

As I said to Chubby rain in post 37: "If oppressing a subgroup is a legitimate objective, then what is the diagnostic tool for discerning what to restrict and what not to? How do we define a subgroup, and why is "blue decks" a legitimate grouping? Should Ravager be restricted because it crowds out other Workshop creatures? Should Dread Return be restricted because it crowds out other Reanimation effects?"

Restricting a card because it dominates the whole Vintage metagame is easy to measure and fair to effectuate. Restricting a card because it oppresses a subgroup of decks is impossible to consistently effectuate, has no logical limit, and is impossible to consistently implement.

Do you think holding off a restriction to appease a vocal minority does not threaten the view of the DCI as legitimate?

You do realize that all of the available evidence assembled thus far shows that most Vintage players do not want a restriction, right? There have been two surveys conducted in the last few months, and regardless of whether you agree with the methodology or not, consistently 60% in both oppose restrictions, and each poll had at least 100 voters.

So, your question here assumes a fact not in evidence, and for which the evidence suggests the assumption is wrong.

I think either you are not understanding me or there is a bait-and-switch element to your argument.

The DCI should restrict Gush so Keeper sees more play

and

The DCI should restrict Gush so there is more diversity within blue decks, including possibly but not certainly Mana Drain-based decks

are two different claims. I am saying that the second is proper and legitimate and frankly normal.

No. No. No.

Go re-read my first bit of response at the top of this post. It's not that I'm not understanding you; it's that you aren't carefully reading my arguments and are consistently misrepresenting my position as a result. If you don't understand something, please ask for clarification, as you have done before.

Of course the first numbered idea above is illegitimate as a policy objective, but I've consistently argued, since post 29 in this thread, that the second idea is illegitimate as well, NOT normal for Vintage. As I said in post 32: "The DCI has never restricted a card because it is oppressive within a subgroup."

Chubby Rain disagreed with that, and tried to present evidence otherwise, and I showed that evidence was inapposite in posts 34 through 40.

I mean, did you completely ignore what I said in post 78? I said:

"The desire to restrict Gush does not actually arise, as I read the situation, from any deep concern for metagame balance or dominance, but more from a desire to play other blue decks. And, from my perspective, I think that's an illegitimate motive for restriction, not matter how dressed up it is. That's because the B&R list does not exist to gaurantee that players can play their preferred style or mode of deck."

I literally do not know how I could have been clearer. I specifically explained why the second idea you have numbered above is illegitimate multiple times and consistently throughout this thread... It's really shocking and unbelievable that you'd not understand that after it being so clearly and repeatedly expressed. Pay attention, man.

You are arguing that I'm wrong because the first is illegitimate (and even that I'm not totally convinced about because blatantly promoting deck X at the expense of deck Y really does promote diversity if Y is seeing more play than X and the promotion doesn't totally kill Y)

It's true that I'm claiming that the first idea is illegitimate, but I've also consistently and clearly said that the second is as well. I'm frankly confused how you can not understand that since it was expressed so clearly in post 29, and thereafter. I mean, how much clearer could I be than this:

"I've heard two separate descriptions of a problem. One is that the Gush Mentor deck is too good. Another is that Gush decks oppress other blue decks. Those are different goals with different means-end implication. [...] I do not recognize the second objective sometimes articulated as either legitimate or as the 'problem' to be corrected."

There is a larger issue here, AJ. I appreciate your support of the podcast, and even respect your passion for Vintage and enjoyment of the format and community, but the truth is that you are scattershot. It doesn't take long to peruse this thread (or these forums) to see that you are all over the place in your views, arguments, and places where you pick debates. Variously, in this thread, you've taken issue with the use of the word "illegitimate," valid restriction objectives, fairness, the relevance of other format banning explanations to Vintage restrictions, trend data, contesting claims about future restrictions, and unrestrictions.

You accused me of drawing an arbitrary distinction. What's arbitrary is what you'll respond to or post about. You aren't advancing an overall vision or understanding of the format. You aren't seeking to develop a larger analytical framework. It just looks like you are just picking little fights wherever you think there is a weakness in an argument rather than because you have some ideological concern with the argument. That is totally inconsistent with the principle of charity that you've sought to apply.

My position is pretty simple, and I've went to great lengths to explain key ideas about the format, criteria for restrictions, and forecast effects of possible restrictions in posts such as 17, 29, 40, 102, and 112. I've explained how Vintage is a unique format, and those unique elements require different handling than, say, Modern (which the DCI admits by applying Turn 4 criteria to banning in that format), and I've described in post 122 I described different bases for restriction, and described some as safe ground and other as more tenuous. I don't mind defending these ideas or developing them further, but I would appreciate it if you aren't interjecting just to entertain yourself.

@vaughnbros said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

@Smmenen

Lets list out the assumptions that you are making in the estimation of post Gush restriction meta (in no particular order):

1. Players will always play the "best" deck.

No, neither my estimates of the restriction of Gush on Mentor nor the estimates of the restriction of Mentor on Gush depend on a background assumption that players will "always" play the best deck. The only thing that I assume is that at least some players will switch to the best deck.

In fact, if you read carefully my exchange with Brian Kelly, you'll note that I repeatedly said that one of the harms of restriction is that it destroys the effort and study and even the communal identities that player segments have developed in association with certain "Schools of Vintage Magic." Thus, I do NOT assume that players will always switch to the best deck, but that there are strong predilection towards certain strategies.

That's one of my issues here. If you read my exchange with Chubby Rain, you'll note that he said that neither he, nor many of the pro-restriction players, are "averse" to playing Gush decks. Yet, that missed the point. It's not that these players do not play Gush decks. It's that they have preferences for other modes or styles of blue decks that they don't get to experience with Gush unrestricted.

So, no, my argument does not assume that every player will always play the best deck. It assumes, however, that there IS some plasticity in deck choice that is neither totally rigid nor totally fluid. i suspect that subtlety may elude many readers.

2. The dynamics of the metagame will stay relatively the same.

This is a pretty vague assumption, but easily proved not to exist within my argument. After all, my forecasts are predicated on the dynamics of the metagame changing in pretty substantial ways.

2b. All blue pilots will stay blue pilots.

It should be pretty obvious that this assumption does not exist within my forecasts as I said in post 122 that "Workshops and Eldrazi will decrease slightly because Thorn based strategies become less potent."

Now, recall that I offered that specifically in response to your question: where will the increase or offset of Mentor decks come from? So, again, things that I've said directly contradict this assumption.

2c. Gush restriction will just make players switch to more restricted Draw spells.

No, my argument does not depend on such a ridiculously overbroad generalization. I do, believe, however, that as you restrict more blue draw spells, it does make it more possible to build around a critical mass of them, and that some players will make that switch.

Recall Keeper decks circa 2001, which used 1 Braingeyser, 1 Stroke of Genius, 1 Ancestral, and usually a tutor suite as the draw engine? Well, post-Gush decks can just use 1 Gush and 2 Delve with cards like JVP, Dack, Scroll, etc. and have just about as robust a draw engine as anything else in the format.

3. Misc blue decks fair worse against Mentor exclusive decks than Mentor Gush and other Gush decks.

No, my argument does not depend upon this assumption either. Misc. blue decks don't have to fair worse against 0-1 Gush Mentor decks than 3-4 Gush Mentor decks for Mentor to either maintain or increase it's metagame share if Gush is restricted. That's because 0-1 Gush Mentor decks can still be worse against other blue decks and still be hugely favored against other blue decks, and even better against non-blue decks.

3b. Shops/Eldrazi fair worse against Mentor exclusive decks than against Mentor Gush, and other Gush decks.

This is actually an assumption that is embedded in my forecast. I do believe that restricting Gush would lead to a slight decline in Thorn decks overall representation in the metagame. But this is a key part of Rich Shay's argument for restricting Gush...

4. Mentor is the best win condition.

Unquestionably, yes, I assume this.

4b. Weaknesses of Mentor itself will not be exploited with Gush out of the picture.

I do not assume this, and it's a ridiculous accusation.

Mentor's weaknesses will be exploited, just as they have been now. Cards like Displacer, Ballista, Sulfer Elemental, etc. all see heavy play and will continue to do so. But I think that Mentor has shown that it is resilient enough to survive these threats, and in faster decks with more mana, these answers will be even more difficult to resolve and utilize.

I'm not sure if even a single one of these assumptions is supportable by evidence. Let alone all of them collectively.

You also keep mentioning how Mentor will still be dominant without Gush, but how about Gush still being dominant without Mentor?

That (forecasting the restriction of Mentor on Gush decks) was comprehensively addressed and explored in post 17 in this thread, 9 days ago. My forecast there is that 33-50% of Mentor players will switch to a non-Gush deck, and the % of Gush decks would drop 6-8%, roughly.

If you are going to ask questions that have already been answered, I'd request you read more carefully.

We actually have evidence to support that as Gush was one of the best decks before Mentor was even printed. In fact Gush has pretty much always been one of the best decks when its been unrestricted. A Mentor restriction could cause more Gush decks to be played, over things like Paradoxical Mentor.

That doesn't make sense. If Mentor is restricted, no one can play Paradoxical Mentor.

Mentor decks generally at least 60% of all Gush decks. Restricting Mentor is almost certainly going to have a statistically significant downward impact on Gush's overall representation in the field. The only question is how much.

I have no doubt that if Mentor is restricted there will still be plenty of Gush decks around. I consider that a good thing. But I also have no doubt that if Mentor is restricted, there will be fewer Gush decks around. The absolute minimum % of Mentor players to switch to a non Gush deck is 10%. But I think the more realistic range is 33-50%. That means that at least half of all Mentor players will continue to stick with Gush decks. But only 90% at most.

That is because Gush has proven itself as the best draw engine. Even as a number of other historically powerful draw engines have been unrestricted, Gush has remained at the top with little competition from others. No matter what people will find some sort of win-con to play in their Gush decks. Pyromancer, Tinker, ect. were all popular in this role before Mentor's printing.

Yes, the Gush Delve draw engine is the best draw engine in the format. There is no question about that. But those other win conditions are poor substitutes.
Because Pyromancer (like Dryad) doesn't trigger off Moxen, it's much harder for Pyromancer to make the leap out of Gush decks. In constrast, it's astoundingly easy for Mentor to do so.

@seksaybish I was bringing that up since the numbers Steve keeps presenting are not based in reality. The format has been 60+% blue for a long time. This isn't a new revelation. Even at the height of Shops, blue still held around 60%.

Thank you for completely misrepresenting what I said.

I said that "roughly 45-50% of the Vintage metagame is always some form of blue control deck." That statement is not inconsistent with 60%+ of the metagame being blue. Rather, I was creating the range that is the floor or minimum % of blue control decks in any Vintage metagame. "is always" refers to the floor or minimum. I did not say that "only 45-50% of the Vintage metagame is always some form of blue control deck."

What's more, it's just amazing to me that you have virtually ignored almost every numerical argument I've made, including my entreaties to specifically point out exactly where your predictions, but yet claim I'm misrepresenting numerical reality.

Let's try to get on the same page here. I've gone out on a limb and made estimates and forecasts. Please do me the courtesy of at least indicating what you think will happen, and if one of these cards is restricted, we can see who turned out to be right. Also, by answering these questions, we can more quickly figure out exactly where our opinions diverge.

So, can you give me a specific percentage range or estimate answer for these two questions:

1. If Mentor is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Gush decks in Top 8s that you expect? (I assume you believe it will have a downward direction, but please indicate).

2. If Gush is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Mentor decks in Top 8s that you expect? (please indicate direction.)

Again, a range is fine with a confidence interval. Assume we are talking about the first 3-6 months post restriction.

Definition: Mentor deck = a blue deck with 3-4 Mentors.

[ajfirecracker]

Personal attacks are the refuge of the man with no argument.

Something I think will be more constructive is presenting an alternative view of Vintage. Forgive the elementary nature of some of my remarks, I feel it is necessary to build up the argument.

Vintage is a "constructed" Magic: The Gathering "format". Constructed formats are lists or rules of permissible and impermissible card selections to bring to an event or to play in a game "of" that format. Formats exist to help players find games of Magic which they want to play. If almost no one is playing a given format that format is a failure, because a player cannot actually find a game of that format. If almost no one wants to play a given format that format is a failure because formats exist to motivate and enable play.

Bans and restrictions (hereafter, restrictions) exist to help formats do their job. When a format is seeing decreasing participation or decreasing engagement, a restriction may be warranted. While the state I am about to describe is harder to establish in the data, a format which is seeing increasing participation/engagement might also benefit from restriction if there are factors which are decreasing participation and engagement but not by a large enough margin to reverse the trend.

In my view, Vintage is a special format, but Vintage is not special in the sense of ignoring the underlying realities I just discussed. Vintage is special in the sense of permitting all cards of every power level from the whole history of Magic. Vintage has a niche, and is appealing (motivates and enables play in the generic way I described above) to certain types of players.

In considering a restriction, the criteria that should be considered are therefore:

1. Does the restriction ultimately tend to increase or decrease the number of players available to play in the format?
2. Does the restriction ultimately tend to increase or decrease the level of player engagement/motivation to play the format?
3. Does the restriction promote some element unique to the niche of Vintage which will ultimately promote the aims above (match availability and engagement)?

Diversity is an incredibly convenient shorthand for analyzing restrictions. We know from prior experience that almost always when formats become dominated by a low number of decks that player participation and engagement declines. As such, a lack of metagame diversity will almost always prompt a restriction.

Nonetheless, a lack of diversity is not the only danger to format success. It is likely the easiest to grasp with data, but that's no fundamental, principled opposition to considering other dangers. It merely raises the bar of proof.

So the notion that B&R policy favoring Mana Drain is inherently forbidden should be seen for what it is: merely another preference. And that's fine! Vintage, like all formats, exists to satisfy player preferences. Variation in player preferences is the whole reason we have more than one format.

Regarding sub-groups, every restriction is aimed at a common goal. The goal is to remove or diminish the strategies and decks featuring the restricted card(s) and in their place substitute something better. In restrictions aimed at diversity, "better" means "more varied". One aspect of the niche of Vintage is that Vintage players tend to be more tolerant of a lack of metagame diversity in senses other than strategic diversity. In other formats, years of 60%+ performance by blue decks would be seen as a serious problem. In Vintage, so long as that 60% is composed of strategically diverse options, players tend to remain motivated to play and engaged in the format.

Viewed in light of the preceding facts, there is nothing special about restricting a card so that other cards which are similar to it in important respects see more play. Mr. Menendian has conceded that a restriction across superficial groups is potentially valid if the data support it. A restriction of a Workshop card to promote diversity by increasing the percentage of blue decks is potentially valid (if the data support it). A restriction of a blue card to increase the proportion of Workshop decks to promote diversity is potentially valid (if the data support it). By some strange mutation, however, a restriction of a blue card to increase the proportion of other blue strategies is never potentially valid, even if the data support such a conclusion. Equally strange, a restriction of a Workshop card to promote other Workshop cards is never potentially valid, even if the data support it. This to me is clearly an absurd position divorced from the "objective" criteria Mr. Menendian claims to seek.

Mr. Menendian no doubt thinks that is an uncharitable characterization. Perhaps it is. Let us try a more charitable one - the DCI should be not adamantly opposed, but merely hesitant to restrict a card for the intended benefit of strategies which are superficially similar to the target of restriction. This is certainly a reasonable preference to have, but I think it could not be more clear that it is merely an odd preference, and nothing more.

To insist that a restriction is disfavored because the likely beneficiary strategies are superficially similar to the target of restriction is to favor the currently-dominant archetypes within the superficial classification scheme. It is precisely what Mr. Menendian seeks to avoid - playing favorites with Banned and Restricted list policy.

[vaughnbros]

@Smmenen Since I guess you can't be bothered to remember something you just wrote a few hours ago:

Claimed assumption

Players will always play the "best" deck.

Steve Quote:

If Gush is restricted, however Mentor will simply migrate to the next best blue shell.

Claimed Assumption

The dynamics of the metagame will stay relatively the same.
2b. All blue pilots will stay blue pilots.

Steve Quote:

If Mentor decks maintain increase their % of the Vintage metagame if Gush is restricted, it will be because the diminution of singleton Gush decks with delve cards is smaller than expected and/or because that diminution is offset by an equal or greater number of non-Gush blue Mentor decks. The estimates or projectsion to support this conclusion are reasonable and drawn from data and an understanding of the current metagame.

Claimed Assumption

2c. Gush restriction will just make players switch to more restricted Draw spells.

Steve Quote:

I'd guess that somewhere between 40-60% of Gush Mentor players will continue to play 1 Gush/2 Delve Mentor

Claimed Assumption:

Misc blue decks fair worse against Mentor exclusive decks than Mentor Gush and other Gush decks.

Steve Quote:

If Gush is restricted, a non-trivial number of decks will just dissappear. Some non-trivial % of those players will likely pick up Mentor.

Claimed assumption:

3b. Shops/Eldrazi fair worse against Mentor exclusive decks than against Mentor Gush, and other Gush decks.

Steve Quote:

If Gush is restricted, I agree with the critics that Workshops and Eldrazi will decrease slightly because Thorn based strategies become less potent. But, I think most of the gains in Mentor Control decks will come from Misc blue decks and from the space by 4 Gush Mentor decks. Again, look at the 8th place deck from BOM for an example.

Really my brain is starting to hurt from all these massive assumptions, and I guestimates being used in the formulation of this prediction. With an "analysis" like this you are doing a massive disservice to people who actually calculate probabilistic predictions for a living.

[celticgriffon]

Not to take away from the discussion, but is it possible we are just missing obvious answers to Mentor aided via its Cantrip/Gush/Git Probe/Misstep enablers?

Swords and bolts won't necessarily do the trick anymore. But surely somewhere in the other 10K+ cards designed for magic there is an answer.

I often feel we get too focused on things being solved. I still believe there are hundreds of decks unexplored which could likely turn vintage on its head. But perhaps it is just my own wishful thinking.

Cheers,
Michael

[MaximumCDawg]

Wow. This is a thread. To everyone's credit, from what I can see, everyone is being superbly respectful even as they bitterly argue about Gush. Kudos to you!

I'm going to toss my hat into the "Don't Restrict Gush" ring for a reason other than I've seen so far. I love Vintage for being what Steven described early on -- the retirement home for Wizards' greatest mistakes. I like playing weird decks, even if they lose, and I hate it when toys get taken away because the competitive crowd has used them to too great an effect.

When WotC decides there is a problem with a format -- due to "format warping," stagnation, low diversity, lower player attendance, on-line complaints, or WHATEVER -- they have four realistic options. I'll present them in the order I find them palatable, from worst to best.

1. Power Level Errata. This was the old, OLD school remedy used to crush combos they did not like. It has been resigned to the dustbin of history, and good riddance to it. Today's mistakes are tomorrow's Vintage decks.

2. Change the Rules. The places where Wizards can deploy this trick are rare, but it happens. They just preemptively changed the rules about Split cards prior to Amonkhet to prevent them from comboing off with Brain in a Jar and the Expertise cycle. Clearly, the player experience convinced them this little trick had to go. I find these changes really jarring, but at least it's well within the range of what WotC can do. Thankfully, there's nothing related to Gush or Mentor that really lends itself well to a rules change fix.

3. Banning and Restriction. This is the level where everyone in this thread is chattering. I don't pretend to know half of what most of you guys do, so I'll just add that I am fundamentally unhappy when a card gets banned or restricted, but I would prefer that WotC regulate its formats this way rather than changing card text or rules.

Which brings us to:

4. New Printings. This is the solution to stagnant formats that no one seems to talk about much when the subject comes up. Just like yesterday's mistakes are tomorrow's Vintage decks, today's bugbears are tomorrow's unplayable garbage. We have already seen Wizards take a step in the direction of making very versatile and powerful answers to Mentor in the form of Leovold. What if we get Dread of Night stapled to a hate bear that does something else relevant? What if we had some card that finally, FINALLY ended the reign of Horizontal Growth once and for all -- say, something that made the opponent's spells cost more for each token they controlled, or something like that?

I would prefer to see WotC think hard about ways to make cards that are playable on their own but also narrowly hate out specific decks they believe are over-represented. Don't restrict Gush: just give us reasons to play something else!

[Smmenen]

@vaughnbros Why can't you answer these two simple questions?:

1. If Mentor is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Gush decks in Top 8s that you expect? (I assume you believe it will have a downward direction, but please indicate).

2. If Gush is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Mentor decks in Top 8s that you expect? (please indicate direction.)

Again, a range is fine with a confidence interval. Assume we are talking about the first 3-6 months post restriction.

Definition: Mentor deck = a blue deck with 3-4 Mentors.

Those are pretty simple questions to answer, and it would allow us to actually figure out where you disagree and what exactly is the scope of our disagreement.

[Winterstar]

Any time cards are restricted that fundamentally change the nature of how a deck archetype plays, new decks/deck designs/cards take their place.

And because these restrictions don't take place in a vacuum, it can be hard to evaluate the result of the restrictions alongside the plethora of new printings.

So the inevitable question is "what do I think the metagame will look like if _______ is restricted" and with the follow up of "will I like what comes next."

In way of example:

The chalice restriction saw major change tot he workshop pillar. Previous builds like Martello became sub-optimal. Over the winter of the restriction would see the rise of ravager shops as the dominant workshop archetype.

I occasionally ask players if they preferred playing against martello or ravager shops- the answers I've gotten are usually split.

Ravager shops gave rise to the restriction of Lodestone Golem, which in turn saw the redefinition of the workshop pillar into the thorn pillar and the evolution of the Eldrazi decks. Workshop has continued along the ravager path, with occasional terra nova and uba stax variants poking their heads up (often dependent on where Mentor decks sit, because smokestack isn't an awesome card against a token producer...)

To my imagination, restricting gush will eventually lead to the question of "did you prefer playing against gush mentor or _____ mentor" in much the same way that chalice elicits a question about martello vs. ravager.

But then again, I'm not sure we are in a place where anything needs to be restricted. Many of the people who said that the lodestone golem restriction really needed to happen for the health of vintage are some of the same voices saying that the vintage metagame is incredibly unhealthy now.

Which means that the restriction did not meet what they wanted. Note well I am not arguing that Lodestone staying would have created a more healthy metagame, nor am I suggesting that the restriction of Lodestone was a terrible event- I'm simply remarking that it did not satisfy. This could be for several reasons- again, restrictions don't stop cards from being printed and deck evolution from continuing.

Which then creates several interesting questions that wappla alluded to in an earlier post: what are players wanting out of vintage?

[MaximumCDawg]

@Winterstar

Which then creates several interesting questions that wappla alluded to in an earlier post: what are players wanting out of vintage?

This is a good idea for a new thread: What do you want out of Vintage, in one sentence?

"I want a place to be creative and make crazy machines without worrying about cards being banned."

[Dumpsterac1d]

@MaximumCDawg

4. New Printings. This is the solution to stagnant formats that no one seems to talk about much when the subject comes up. Just like yesterday's mistakes are tomorrow's Vintage decks, today's bugbears are tomorrow's unplayable garbage. We have already seen Wizards take a step in the direction of making very versatile and powerful answers to Mentor in the form of Leovold. What if we get Dread of Night stapled to a hate bear that does something else relevant? What if we had some card that finally, FINALLY ended the reign of Horizontal Growth once and for all -- say, something that made the opponent's spells cost more for each token they controlled, or something like that?

While I totally agree with preferring new printings to restriction, I think it'd be pretty tough for Wizards to "target" new printings at solving the problems of any format, other than Standard. I think it happens on accident when a new card does warp or add something to a non-rotating format because WotC either doesn't think a certain mechanic will end up making the cut in eternal, or they just don't consider the entirety of Magic when they innovate cards (to many a brewer's delight). I personally think it would suck to have a card like what you describe printed, Wizards would be addressing the problem with a "play it or beat it" mindset, which would make me super uncomfortable as a Vintage player, not to mention it's far less expensive from their perspective to restrict a card than to print a new card.

Good new printings usually emerge as cards that end up propping up various other archetypes that as a side effect, hurt the big bad deck. Not saying that Shops is hurting right now (quite the opposite), but if Mentor is the target of our discussion then cards like Fleetwheel Cruiser or Walking Ballista are "good new printings" because they help boost the competition. (I personally like it best when WotC makes a mistake and prints a 2-card combo with some obscure Tempest card I haven't seen in a deck since 1997, but that's rare ) Thinking in those terms it would be very difficult to see an "accidental" new printing resolving the Mentor issue, the "other" deck has 3-5 new cards in the past year to combat Mentor and boost its own strategies, but Mentor remains a problem.

Since this discussion has gone into minutiae, this isn't really necessary, but I felt like I should bleep in.

I've been saying this for a bit... Gush wasn't completely busted until we started using a 3CMC "gro-wide" creature as a 4 of. Gush in any other creature-based shell was reasonable, and I can't believe I'm saying this because Pyromancer Gush was/is very annoying and boring to play against, but I'd rather deal with U/B/R Delver with a healthy dose of Elemental tokens flashing back Cabal Therapies than deal with any deck that uses Mentor. Mentor is oppressive, uninteresting, and unfun; taking out tokens is key to surviving the fight of both Pyro and Mentor, but Monk tokens are far more resilient and oppressive than Elemental tokens, and they are generated and pumped by enchantments and artifacts... A much different beast altogether.

Point being that if you don't like Gush decks mentally ruling the metagame, restricting the card that profits off of it the most is probably a good way to go.

Some questions I think need to be asked, and I rhetorically answer them because, why not.

If Gush were the real issue, wouldn't (at least) one other Gush-based deck be a runner-up in the meta, and be an obvious successor to Mentor, should Monastery Mentor be restricted?
Considering the other two Gush decks are at 3% and 4% of the meta (Pyro Delver and Nahiri respectively), they both don't add up to half of the numbers Gush Mentor has in the meta (23% of decks as of 4/10/17), even adding the 1% from Gush/Bond. I assume the percentage of Pyro Delver would go up should Monastery Mentor be restricted, but whether or not it is good enough against new Shops variants, Eldrazi, newer Oath variants, etc, is to be seen. I personally don't think Pyromancer is nearly as good, in any way, as Monastery Mentor, and I don't think any variant of Pyromancer would emerge as the "#1 deck" should MM be restricted. And, to be quite frank, if Gush WAS the problem, wouldn't Gush/Bond really be the way to maximize and break the format, considering everyone's talking about "free spells and mana ramp" as reasons to axe Gush? Curious that Gush/bond is sitting at 1.4% of the format... Other factors certainly bear on that number, still is a bit illustrative that many of us are looking in the wrong place.

Are we certain that restricting Gush would have any effect on the metagame other than nearly wiping out that 7-8% of non-mentor Gush decks? Are we sure that Mentor wouldn't still be in top 8s by making the least effort possible to update to a world with 1 Gush?
I don't think so. Restricting Gush "hurts" Mentor like a bee-sting.
It's funny when folks mention the banning of Splinter Twin in Modern as an example of how to hit Gush... (I swear it's somewhere in the morass above)
Mentor IS Splinter Twin and Gush is Pestermite in this analogy. Splinter Twin has an analogous card that is strictly worse in Kiki Jiki (in the case of Mentor is Young Pyromancer), Twin abuses the functionally identical Pestermite and Exarch (in the case of Gush is literally any other draw spell or free artifact spell) to go broken. Imagine the DCI banning Exarch or Pestermite in order to solve the problem of Twin decks. This is essentially what would happen if the DCI restricted Gush to hit Mentor decks. I acknowledge that this is an imperfect analogy since Gush is better than Preordain to a much bigger degree than Pestermite is better than Exarch, but that is beside the point; the big baddy is Mentor.

Will restricting Gush be enough?
It would take quite a lot of restrictions in order to curb Mentor effectively, we're talking Probe, Gush, Misstep, Preordain, and maybe the next-worst cantrip as well. Eliminating 4-ofs of a single card in a Mentor list would be ineffectual at curbing Mentor unless it's Mentor. "Mentor-the-card" is the problem, its effect has been to amplify nearly every card being called for restriction in this thread and elsewhere.

I would think the goal of any restriction is to not restrict more cards, correct? Be as effective as possible in dealing with imbalances without 8-card restrictions and format micro-management? Seeing as Mentor will get along just fine without Gush and will likely need a second restriction to affect its position, not to mention the side-effect of killing gush/bond decks which are enjoyable to watch (from my perspective) and fun to play against, restricting Monastery Mentor is the most effective way to get the desired effect.

I don't want to seem combative, but it's been irritating seeing people value having the card Mentor in the format more than the card Gush. Gush has been around for such a long time, it has a history in the format for good or ill, and it's powerful but by god are we a far cry from calling Gush/Bond more "broken" than Mentor. Gush is difficult to play and is interesting, Mentor is extremely easy to play and is uninteresting.

Gush needs to be correctly analyzed regarding its power level once Mentor (which profits off far more cards than just Gush) is off the table.

[vaughnbros]

@Smmenen You hadn't asked. Based on MTGtop8 results:

Id say its pretty much impossible to make an initial estimation without assuming the format %'s stay relatively the same. You could theoretically add in something with the win%'s from the P9 tournaments every month, but that could get very complicated. In addition, an assumption needs to be made on where the old decks go:

Assumption 1, New decks are evenly distributed among existing (ie all these players basically just quit Vintage):
Restricted Gush results in 3% additional PO Mentor and 6% additional "other" blue. (increases in other decks as well)
Restricted Mentor results in 3% additional Delver and 6% additional "other" blue. (increases in other decks as well)

Assumption 2, New decks go to the next most frequent deck (ie Everyone is a Spike and just wants to play the best deck). The next most frequent deck is MUD so there are no new Mentor or Gush.

Assumption 3, New decks are evenly distributed among current blue decks (ie These players just want to keep playing blue):
Restricted Gush results in 7% additional Oath, 15% additional "other" blue, and 7% additional PO Mentor
Restricted Mentor results in 7% additional Oath, 15% additional "other" blue, and 7% additional Delver

Assumption 4, New decks are go to the next most frequent blue deck (depends on interpretation of next most frequent) (ie These players want to play the best blue decks):
Restricted Gush/Mentor both result in 29% additional "other" blue, OR
Restricted Gush results in 14.5% additional PO Mentor and 14.5% additional Oath
Restricted Mentor results in 14.5% additional Delver and 14.5% additional Oath

In none of these scenarios is Gush/Mentor increasing in response to the other being restricted. Because the only way that could happen is if I made an additional assumption that the other decks change in response to that restriction. That is why I kept asking you what other decks are switching into Mentor.

Maybe you can draw some conjecture as to where the format is going from this point, or maybe you could bring in some assumption about win%, but in either situation you are making more assumptions. And more assumptions = Lower Probability of the event actually being true.

Let's ask a few other alternative scenarios:
If Thorn were restricted would you expect the % of Eldrazi, or Shops to increase?
If Bridge were restricted would you expect to see the % of Bazaar to increase?
If Orchard were restricted would you expected to see the % of Oath to increase?
I'm not sure how you can objectively answer, yes, to any of these. In a similar fashion, it seems crazy to me that you expect the % of Mentor to increase if a card in the best Mentor deck is being restricted.

[Smmenen]

@vaughnbros said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

@Smmenen You hadn't asked.

Then it's obvious you aren't reading what I'm writing. I had already asked you twice:

At the very end of post 139, I wrote:

"So, can you give me a specific percentage range or estimate answer for these two questions:

1. If Mentor is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Gush decks in Top 8s that you expect? (I assume you believe it will have a downward direction, but please indicate).

2. If Gush is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Mentor decks in Top 8s that you expect? (please indicate direction.)"

In other words, the two questions you just said I hadn't asked in response to my previous post.

And, in post 112, I asked the same thing: "If you don't agree with any of those estimates, then indicate exactly what your estimates would be, not just that you disagree."

By not reading carefully, you compel me to repeat myself.

Id say its pretty much impossible to make an initial estimation without assuming the format %'s stay relatively the same.

It's no more impossible than asking what the NASDAQ average is going to be a month from now, within a range.

Now, please just answer the questions, and I'll address the specific assumptions.

Maybe you can draw some conjecture as to where the format is going from this point, or maybe you could bring in some assumption about win%, but in either situation you are making more assumptions. And more assumptions = Lower Probability of the event actually being true.

Of course there are assumptions embedded in any forecast. But only by making the forecast, can we illuminate what those assumptions are. Until you do so, we are debating assumption rather than forecasts.

Please provide an estimate of answers to the two questions I asked, and we can then evaluate exactly 1) what the degree of disagreement is between your position and mine, and 2) only THEN can we try to burrow down and try to figure out what the specific differences in our assumptions are.

If your estimates are not actually that far off from mine, then delving into the specifics of our various assumptions it not actually necessary. Your approaching this backwards.

Of course there are going to be huge margins of error and confidence intervals. The future isn't knowable with any precision. But it's not impossible to forecast a reasonable range. I already made this point over and over again with respect to 1) tomorrow's temperature or 2) the Dow or NASDAQ averages at COB. Please just indicate, roughly or with a range, what you think the likely effects are of either restriction, and we can debate the assumptions thereafter.

Let's ask a few other alternative scenarios: [...] I'm not sure how you can objectively answer, yes, to any of these. In a similar fashion, it seems crazy to me that you expect the % of Mentor to increase if a card in the best Mentor deck is being restricted.

Although I already answered that question very comprehensively in post 112, I will be happy to cover that ground again as soon as you answer the two questions I've been asking you to answer for days now.

[vaughnbros]

@Smmenen I was busy having an aneurysm from the rest of your post trying to tell me that you didn't make any assumptions in the creation of your %'s, and didn't make it down to the bottom of your post.

I've already given you an estimate, and pointed out the key difference of assumptions. You are making the assumption that some non-trivial number of currently non-Mentor decks are going to switch to Mentor. So much so that they will replace all of the Gush Mentor decks plus some.

Why do you keep using Post numbers? These aren't numbered. Give me a time stamp if you really want to reference a previous post.

[Smmenen]

@vaughnbros said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

@Smmenen I was busy having an aneurysm from the rest of your post trying to tell me that you didn't make any assumptions in the creation of your %'s, and didn't make it down to the bottom of your post.

I've already given you an estimate, and pointed out the key difference of assumptions.

Yes, but tell me which one you think is most likely. That is, gun to your head, which do you think is most likely to occur?

Also, you didn't answer the question. The question wasn't what happens to the metagame generally from either restriction.

The specific questions were: what happens to Card A if Card B is restricted? With Cards A and B being Mentor and Gush. You didn't fully answer the question.

You are making the assumption that some non-trivial number of currently non-Mentor decks are going to switch to Mentor. So much so that they will replace all of the Gush Mentor decks plus some.

I didn't say I didn't make any of those assumptions. I said that I didn't make most of those assumptions. There were at least 2 which I conceded I made. Again, please read more carefully. It seems like most of these posts could have been avoided had you simply put more effort into careful reading.

Why do you keep using Post numbers? These aren't numbered. Give me a time stamp if you really want to reference a previous post.

Again, look more carefully.

Posts are numbered. Look at the URL in the browser window, and you can see the post number. For example:

http://www.themanadrain.com/topic/1062/smip-podcast-63-where-do-we-go-from-here/150

Also, as you scroll down through a thread, there is a little bar at the top of the window that tells you what post you are reading... It's right next to the search bar at the top of the page.

It's not hard to miss. You just aren't looking carefully.

[vaughnbros]

@Smmenen
And many of my posts could be avoided by you being clearer, and more concise.

In my estimation, its most likely the % of Mentor drops with a Gush restriction. Based on the estimates I provided above, I'd place the range of change in Mentor from anywhere between -22% and +7%.

[Smmenen]

OK, we are making progress now, but your answers are still unclear.

@vaughnbros said in SMIP Podcast #63: "Where Do We Go From Here?":

In my estimation, its most likely the % of Mentor drops with a Gush restriction. Based on the estimates I provided above, I'd place the range of change in Mentor from anywhere between -22% and +7%.

Q: 1) If Mentor is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Gush decks in Top 8s that you expect? (I assume you believe it will have a downward direction, but please indicate).

A: Your answer is that Gush might fall by as much as 80% or as little as 42%? It's not clear from post 148.

You said under assumption 1 restricting Mentor results in 3% more Delver. Under assumption 2, it's unclear. Under assumption 3, you said 7% more delver. Under assumption 4, you said 14.5% more delver.

For transparency, my assumptions are as follows:

1. Gush Mentor is about 18-22% of the metagame
2. Gush decks are around 22-33% (depending on the month, even, and the metagame).

Feel free to contest either assumption in refining your answer. I just want to make sure we are on the same page in terms of at least understanding your position.

The operation I'm making to calculate the percentages is so subtract the portion of Gush Mentor (if Mentor is restricted) from the current metagame, and then adding the % of Delver decks you indicated under each assumption. Please confirm that I'm reading you correctly.

Q: 2: If Gush is restricted, what is the % change in the overall proportion of Mentor decks in Top 8s that you expect? (please indicate direction.)

A: Your answer is that Mentor will fall between -22% to +7%?

If Mentor is only 22% of the metagame now, are you saying that the low end estimate is that Gush's restriction causes Mentor to completely disappear? Recall that only 20% of the decks at the BoM were Mentor. Source: http://www.bazaar-of-moxen.com/en/index.html

I'm just trying to clearly understand your estimate.

[vaughnbros]

@Smmenen My estimates for Gush and Mentor are near identical based on whats currently in the meta. Sorry if that wasn't clear. It would also be -22% to +7%.

This is based on Mentor Gush being 22%, Delver at 7%, and PO Mentor at 7%. The low end of Gush being restricted is that only PO Mentor remains. The same is true of Mentor being restricted, only Delver remaining.

There may be some residual Gush/Mentor in the "other" blue category, but I didn't scrub through that.