How good is Monastery Mentor as of this afternoon?



  • @Topical_Island

    Aaron Forsythe was pretty clear on Twitter that player feedback trumped logic and data on this B&R decision. So blame your fellow players.



  • @Topical_Island To be fair, I think it's a bit of a disservice to say that the DCI are completely clueless and do no playtesting or anything like that. They might come to incorrect conclusions, but surely you aren't implying they do no work at all when coming to a decision?

    I actually liked the way this B&R announcement in that they went into fair depth about every format. The problem with being super transparent is that it invites people to pick holes in whatever logic they put out.

    @ribby said in How good is Monastery Mentor as of this afternoon?:

    @Topical_Island

    Aaron Forsythe was pretty clear on Twitter that player feedback trumped logic and data on this B&R decision. So blame your fellow players.

    No, he wasn't. He said that player feedback was the catalyst to change. He did not say that it trumped data when it comes to making a decision. I hate when people are mis-quoted into oblivion because it simply makes them communicate less.

    https://twitter.com/mtgaaron/status/856590909349089281



  • @Topical_Island said in How good is Monastery Mentor as of this afternoon?:

    @Brass-Man Yeah. I understand, and understood those reasons before. But what I really mean to ask is... why? As in... no really... why?

    If the DCI came out tomorrow with an official statement as to how Old-School should be played, and scolding people for including Ice Age... what would that do?

    I dunno really. Maybe everyone would fall in line. Maybe just the vast majority. Maybe everyone would ignore it and it would be hilarious.

    I ask again why the people who simply purchased the game from it's inventor... no wait, the people hired by the people who purchased the game from its inventor, and who do about nothing to support this format, and do... is it no playtesting at all for vintage? Wait, I forgot that we don't get to know about that... so my question is... why do they issue the restrictions this way at all?

    If a groundswell of sub 1100 rated chess players got mad at losing a bunch of games and complained to FIDE in such a way as to get knights banned for being unfun... would people at home with chess sets just throw them in the garbage?

    Sorry for the thread derail... I really don't disagree with the decision about Gush or Probe that much. But the way these decisions get made is just astounding to me every time. Its like this perverse democracy where you vote by screaming at the top of your lungs... was the emergency, in the emergency ban of Copy Cat today, just twitter outrage at it not being banned? I feel like I'm living in an Arthur Miller play.

    In a nutshell, listening to them and playing by their rules (except for the whole proxy thing) gives us legitimacy and stability. I think us listening to them boils down to those 2 things. And that is not bad at all.



  • @Hrishi you're not nearly as good as Steve and trying to literally interpret statements in arguments. As in, he usually does it well, and you did it really poorly here.

    It's pretty obvious from the WORDING of the tweet that player feedback > other stuff.

    And if you're going to argue that player feedback made them think about the restriction but didn't play the same role in them following through... well, that kind of mental gymnastics on the order of thinking restricting Gush is good for the format.



  • @ribby What? The tweet LITERALLY SAYS player feedback leads to design theory, data and testing. It does not say player feedback is more important than any of the other stuff when making the decision. There are many other examples which prove that player feedback is more important, but Aaron's tweet is not one of them.

    If you're trying to insult me by saying I'm not as good as Steve in literally interpreting statements in arguments, I think I would actually take that as a compliment.


  • TMD Supporter

    @wappla hit the nail on the head a few posts up.

    Everyone should be troubled by what Aaron said. The role of the DCI is to regulate formats and therefore monitor data and format results for signs of problems.

    Essentially admitting that "player feedback" (aka "complaining") is the trigger for a DCI investigation into the complained about issue raises a host of concerns if not outright problems.

    First of all, people only generally provide feedback when they are unhappy about something. Therefore, having player feedback serve as the trigger creates an obvious asymmetry: the vast majority of "feedback" the DCI will get are complaints.

    Very few people are motivated to write Wizards to say "Hey, Great job; amazing format!"

    If "player feedback" is the trigger for DCI analysis, then the DCI can never really know whether complainers represent a majority of the format or only a vocal minority. The survey results earlier this month showed that only 38% of players wanted Gush restricted, and far, far smaller wanted Probe restricted, but over 60% wanted Mentor restricted. This seems like an obvious case where the DCI listened to complainers over the will of the majority.

    Finally, if player feedback is the trigger for DCI analysis, it suggests that format problems will go otherwise unnoticed and unattended unless someone complains. That's a dereliction of duty.



  • @Smmenen Additionally, the DCI's decision to so obviously ignore available data and heed complaints increases the likelihood people will complain in the future.

    The vocal complaints this last cycle were motivated by the perception that the DCI is inappropriately influenced by anyone willing to promote MTGO on Twitch each night.

    The practice of privileging of vocal celebrity opinion over both popular views and match data is deeply troubling.



  • @Brass-Man also can't they use MTGO data to get a window into what the proxy tournaments are doing?


  • Administrators

    @boxian what I meant was that MTGO players have to obey the WotC b&r decisions, because MTGO enforces them. You can't just run a tournament with prizes and an entry fee on MTGO using any rules-set you want like you can in paper magic.



  • @Brass-Man yeah i agree with that, i was talking about how they have tournament results every day or so to draw from that can replicate the paper tournaments, so they could draw from that data. Not disagreeing with you, tangentially adding to your point



  • @Brass-Man Yeah. I understood it. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm tying to intentionally misunderstand you. At no point do I think you are wrong about anything you said. I'm just a little frustrated at the value of the DCI's impartiality being rooted to firmly in what also looks like apathy to me. I really think the best case scenario is for them to have exactly as much authority as they do now, but to playtest openly and cite hard data when making decisions. I understand why we don't want players calling these shots, but the more the DCI feels like its getting pushed around by twitter-tantrums (Cough Cough Copy Cat)... that's exactly what it feels like we have.



  • If you look at what happened with standard yesterday, player feedback seems to most certainly be a driving factor in bans/restrictions. I don't play standard, so I could care less, but it's a pretty good example of future direction.



  • The DCI's job is to make formats that people want to play. Its literally their only actual job. Their job is not to make fair and impartial decisions based on what decks are objectively better. I feel like some people forget that. Data from polls and complaints is just as valid as top 8 data if not more.

    This restriction WAS data based. We had multiple polls going saying that people wanted something restricted from Mentor Gush. They decided that Gush and Probe were the correct cards to hit and not Mentor itself. They are trying to cure the disease, not the symptom.



  • @vaughnbros People do forget that. You are right. However, people also forget that feeling as though the decisions are being made in a way that is rational and fair contributes exactly to people wanting to play the format... feeling that decisions are not made in this way makes people want to play the format less. I can prove that to you right now. Decisions being made in this way makes me want to play the format less.

    In the last year I have played about 700 games of vintage magic. None of them on MTGO. (Because investing money with these guys directly seems crazy. They change policy based on reactions from twitter for cripe-sake. And they just promised me that they would continue MTGO for the foreseeable future. Not encouraging.)

    I wonder how they are calculating me into their business model, or not at all. I suspect the second. Maybe they are actually uber-genius bean counters who calculate that the best way to extract value from me is just by utilizing the down stream economic value I add to the overall trade of magic cards, when I buy random singles or trade. But I doubt it. Seriously? They have that kind of actuarial skill but walked right into the Felidar Guardian mess... no way.

    In fact the point, if one accepts this borg-like mindset that wizards is only there to maximize the profit margin of wizards, is that very mindset is counterproductive to its own stated goal. What kind of customer wants to be a part of something like that? What kind of slogan would that be? Play Magic! The best game in the world at extracting monetary value from its players!

    The point is that the DCI has to be about more than just that. Even if there goal is only to maximize player desire, by stating it overtly and twisting in the direction of the prevailing winds... they almost surely lose players. The DCI should hold itself to something more, if for no other reason that it would be economically more effective, but also because it would just be better.

    In fact, I think we all know that a pretty haphazard job gets done, and the profit margin argument gets used as a dodge more than anything else.



  • @rbartlet very good point re our skewed meta! We have an over representation of landstill players in particular too. Let's see how it goes and hope you can make EW next year! :)


  • TMD Supporter

    Top 8ed with Jeskai Mentor in the MTGO p9 event, and my only loss in the swiss was the mirror match to @Brass-Man

    My decklist: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-ngwYYUwAEx4WB.jpg



  • @Smmenen nice! Looks to me like your +1 Scroll +1 Mystical are perfectly serviceable replacements for the -2 Gush. After the tournament is there anything else you would suggest changing in the list?

    Entirely sidenote: I assume the 2 REB effects maindeck as opposed to just 1 was a meta choice (I'm trying to make sure I can consistently have game against a meta of Shops and Eldrazi pre-sideboard so I probably have to stick with 1 or 0)


  • TMD Supporter

    I got 2nd with DPS that splashed white for 4 Mentors.



  • @desolutionist I just got done watching your win against Brassy. Cool deck. Very impressive.



  • @wappla Ya, but common knowledge was that Gush Mentor was the best deck pre-restriction. Not enough people are gonna grow a pair and play something else to try and generate data. Now we have no choice but to be Guinea pigs.


Log in to reply
 

WAF/WHF

Looks like your connection to The Mana Drain was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.