Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017



  • @wappla said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    @vaughnbros actually everyone thinks that, but because people can't agree on what is fun, it's an idiotic way to make decisions.

    Is it? Many people seem to argue for an "objective" method for DCI action focusing on creating a "balanced" format. People can't seem to agree what is objective, and what is balanced. I don't see anyone arguing for what is fun vs unfun.

    Idiotic is prioritizing things that aren't fun in a game.


  • Administrators

    @mourningpalace We've had policies like that in the past and it's never worked before. It could be worth trying again, but my hopes aren't high.


  • Administrators

    @vaughnbros said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    I don't see anyone arguing for what is fun vs unfun.

    I have seen a TON of those arguments. If you start a thread on TMD asking "what's fun in vintage?" you will very likely see another one.

    Easy examples: Are Workshop decks fun? How about combo decks? How about cards like counterspells that invalidate other strategies? How about cards like Cavern of Souls that invalidate counterspells? Which is more fun, a 2 deck metagame or a 10 deck metagame? Does Chalice of the Void make games less fun because it cuts off Moxes, or does it make the game more fun because it punishes people for playing unfun cards? Are Moxes fun or not? How much variance is fun?

    Ask a random magic player "Is Vintage fun?" and most of them will say "No." I understand fighting for a kind of format that you think is more fun, but there's no objectivity about this stuff.



  • @Brass-Man I'm not sure how much objectivity there is in any of this, and if objectivity from somewhat arbitrary baseline is what is best in the first place. I think taking a step back and evaluating things from a big picture view of what the goal of a game is helps to gain clarity. These arguements often get caught in the weeds discussing 1 or 2 cards, or very broad "archetypes" which only exist because of how the restricted list is currently formatted. If everything was unrestricted, cards like Gush, Workshop and Bazaar would be side notes to much more powerful cards.

    I think you could formulate a survey that could potentially determine the best parameters for a format. A single survey question would certainly not be sufficient. For instance questions like:
    "What is the ideal speed for the format?" (Wizards has explicitly stated turn 3/4 in modern for instance, and has done almost everything in their power to make the format adhere to that standard)
    "How important do you think strategy diversity is?"
    "How important do you think color diversity is?"
    "How important should deck building decisions be?"
    "More specifically, sideboard choices?"
    "How important should in game decisions be?"
    "More specifically, mulligan decisions?"
    ect.

    At that point, one could certainly objectively determine what is "fun" or at the very least desired according to the results of such a survey. And you simplify the problem to determining how to achieve those parameters.



  • @ChubbyRain

    "Sigh, are we really going to have to do this every week Ryan and I put one of these out?"

    God forbid we voice our opinions on the current metagame or B&R list!

    You are dealing with humans that have invested money into a game they are passionate about. Of course we are going to speak up on one of the largest public vintage forums available to us.

    NO ONE by any means should be deterring anyone from voicing their opinions about the B&R list or the metagame.



  • @HouseOfCards I don't disagree that we should have a platform to discuss such things, but doing it on the (now) weekly MTGO Vintage Challenge metagame report isn't really the place to have such a discussion. There should be (and already is) other threads on the matter.


  • Administrators

    @vaughnbros said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    I think you could formulate a survey that could potentially determine the best parameters for a format.

    but who do you give the survey to? :\



  • @Khahan
    "Honestly if this is your perception there is no point in talking."

    If you think they there is no point in talking, then why are you responding?

    "You claim you can't be consistent enough but you do realize that if every sphere effect were restricted you would still have trinisphere, sphere of reistance, thorn of amethyst, lodestone golem for 4 sphere effects to make things cost more mana and 1 strip mine and 4 wastelands, 1 chalice of the void and 4 revokers to chip away at the mana base. That's almost 25% of your deck that screws with mana in other decks."

    Having only 4 spheres effects, a chalice, 5 waste effects and 4 revokers in a deck to chip away at a mana base won't actually impact the mana base substantially. We would have to draw all of these cards together and more often than not or have the nut draw every game. As it stands currently, thorns/spheres aren't impacting things enough vs blue decks. They just play more lands to mitigate resistors. If the current resistors were enough, shops would make up the majority of top 8s as we would be smashing all the blue decks. As you can see, shops isn't making up the majority of top8s. Blue decks are. Sure, blue decks are a larger portion of the meta, however, their percentages they make up of top 8's are either equal to or greater than the percentage of their appearance in the meta game. Shops is the opposite. I think looking closely from that window tells a bigger tale that should be looked at closely.

    Thorns/Spheres are currently only serving as early game speed bumps. Blue decks more often than not power through them. All blue decks had to do was run more lands to mitigate these effects. Have you refused to adapt to spheres by running more lands? Are your opponents just getting the best nut draw possible vs you lately? Are you getting unlucky in your draws? If I have the nut draw, sure i'll use my revoker on a mox. If I don't, It is extremely risky for me to name a mox as blue decks eventually have enough mana to cast spells that can swing the board-state into their favor. This could range from anywhere to planeswalkers and vault-key Using revokers to name mox has become more of a risk these days than reward imo.

    If you took away 3 thorns, we literally need the nut draw EVERY game to compete. We would need you to never play basic lands so our wastelands would be useful as a taxing effect as they are part of the 25% that you quoted. That's also not accounting for all of blue's permission either.

    While you might think it is annoying that a portion of our deck messes with the mana of others, that is what shops is designed to do. We rarely win games when we are unable to mess with your mana. Do you just want shops to be a deck that drops dudes and allows blue to do whatever they please casting multiple spells a turn in succession while still being able to say no through all the permission spells they run in their deck?

    The picture is bigger than you think.

    On a sidenote, the complaints about taxing decks I find are silly. We've lost 6 taxing slots in the last couple years and have not received any replacements. Players often use the phrase "it is un-fun to play against" to justify restricting certain cards. Do people find it fun playing vs decks packed with a dozen permission spells? At least with taxing decks, you know what you can/can't do. When facing permission it is more of a false hope as i'm hoping i get my spell through.

    If you take away more taxing effects, the game becomes less and less of a song/dance and more decided on cards like force of will/mana drain into a win/con or combo.



  • @enderfall It's a metagame report. Of course we are going to make comments about the metagame and the things that shape it. There is nothing wrong with people saying things such as it being a circle jerk of mentor/outcome/shops. It is directly related to the report lol.



  • @HouseOfCards said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    @enderfall It's a metagame report. Of course we are going to make comments about the metagame and the things that shape it. There is nothing wrong with people saying things such as it being a circle jerk of mentor/outcome/shops. It is directly related to the report lol.

    You most certainly can talk about the REPORT without devolving into a B&R bitch fest within 1.25 posts.



  • @enderfall If you don't like to read things that play a role in shaping the meta, then scroll past it. You can also block other users.


  • TMD Supporter

    @nedleeds said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    @desolutionist said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    @MSolymossy said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    @desolutionist Misstep has value against Paradox to the point of boarding my 3rd one in this weekend in Michigan, because Top, Mana Vault, Sol Ring, and if they play it, Key are extremely important. Paradox blows you out with Mana Vault, Mana Crypt, and Sol Ring to the point where it has better value than other cards in my deck most-often.

    If I start countering artifact mana, my Mox monkey will starve... I understand theirs ways to use Misstep against Outcome, but is that use strategically better than other options?

    Back up. How are you resolving Mox Monkey again? Cavern on Ape? :)

    You bait out their Misstep with Ancestral and then take a 4 for 1 with Mox Monkey 👊


  • Administrators

    @desolutionist I'm loving the idea of Monkey being back in the format as an anti-Outcome card, by the way. Kind of a Null Rod for decks that can't run Null Rod. If you could kill Artifact Creatures with it, it would be mind-blowing.



  • @HouseOfCards scroll past pages worth of drivel? Sorry if I don't want to get arthritis in my thumb trying to see the metagame trends as what they are, metagame trends, instead of rehashing the same freaking argument every single week as if we start from the beginning. But sure, I'll just scroll over all the infighting when there is already a thread to discuss these things. I'm the problem. Got it.



  • @Brass-Man Your target audience for the format.



  • @Brass-Man Manglehorn has been one of my best cards VS outcome


  • TMD Supporter

    @Brass-Man said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    @ChubbyRain said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    Sigh, are we really going to have to do this every week Ryan and I put one of these out?

    Yup.

    People can't help themselves.

    B&R threads are toxic and I'm 100% sure they've done more harm to format than unrestricted Lodestone, Gush, Brainstorm, or Trinisphere ever did. I'm also pretty sure they're completely unstoppable.

    No, what's toxic is when players lobby the DCI to restrict cards to help make their pet decks or preferred style of play better or more viable. That's what's toxic.

    It's most corrosive when those players represent a minority of players.

    That was a master stroke by @wappla posting Demars quote from 4 years ago. When the DCI tries to make Mana Drain decks more viable or manipulates the format by listening to a vocal minority (especially Mana Drain pilots), they really screw up the format, and generate resentment among other players.


  • TMD Supporter

    An Oath deck in the top eight again? Gross. Stone Forge Mystic? I am SO SICK of all the Stone Forge Mystic decks we've had to deal with over the past few years.

    Seriously though as someone who has to comb through deck lists week after week is is a nice tall refreshing glass of something different these days. Sure, I see plenty of decks that haven't changed much since World War G happened, but we didn't want to make all those decks disappear completely did we? Didn't we want some diversity and whatnot? @desolutionist has been finishing well with GIFTS UNGIVEN FFS. The deck that won this vintage event had as many Stone Forges as it had Mentors, and that hasn't been a thing since 2015 as far as I can tell.

    Maybe I am being too optimistic but I don't think the format is ruined.


  • TMD Supporter

    I feel like I'm watching a dog chase his tail.



  • @Smmenen said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    When the DCI tries to make Mana Drain decks more viable or manipulates the format by listening to a vocal minority (especially Mana Drain pilots), they really screw up the format.

    Maybe this is what the DCI tried and maybe it isn't. I'd rather not get into that, but you seem to suggest here that there's some sort of secret cabal of Mana Drain players who meet in dark corners and conspire to lobby for cards to be restricted. I'm stretching the imagination here a bit, but there is an accusatory tone to your statements, which I feel is really unwarranted.

    What's more likely is that people speak out when they're not having fun, in their own subjective view, and offer suggestions on how to fix it. This is what happens in almost every game with rotating "balance". This is the sort of thing that happens on a daily basis in most game forums. Sometimes their solutions are correct and sometimes it isn't. It's up to the DCI to listen to such complaints but come to their own conclusions on how to solve the problem.

    It's easy to dismiss complaints as having no merit and become jaded. In fact, every complaint has merit, but the solution offered with the complaint might not be the optimal one.

    And if we really want to speak about lobbying to get cards restricted, might I point to the list of workshop cards that were lobbied for? I don't think that was for the benefit of Mana Drain.

    I also really dislike how weekly metagame reports devolve into B&R discussions. I'm the last person to say they don't belong on the website. Gone are the days when you can forbid such talk because it'll simply happen elsewhere. But perhaps we can have a sticky or something where all the grousing can go, similar to how The Source does it?



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