Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017



  • @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 👊



  • @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?


  • TMD Supporter

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

    @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.

    No, what you said is unwarranted. It is your imagination as I never said (or implied) any of that.

    My tone is angry, not accusatory.

    Regardless of how good the format is or not right now, Vintage players have a right to be furious with DCI management of the format right now.

    I also really dislike how weekly metagame reports devolve into B&R discussions.

    The author of this report invite them by not keeping it to the facts, such as comments like this ("Note that these mentor decks were all quite different, and in general the metagame is still changing rapidly."), which clearly reflect a point of view (trying to put a more positive spin on the current state of the metagame). Stick to just the facts, ma'am.

    The players complaining about the format right now are 100% justified in their complaints and their anger. Complaining about people complaining is silly.



  • The entire B&R argument can be summed up as:

    "Paper's too OP we should restrict it; but Scissors are fine" ~ Rock.

    A B&R should not be used to cater to pet decks. I think the format is adapting fairly well, as we tend to see different decks on the weekly challenge top 8s. Who knows, maybe more blue decks top 8 because people like playing blue. May dredge doesn't top as much because people think it's boring.



  • @Smmenen This isn't about people complaining, it's about people overgeneralizing based on the results of a 50 person tournament. Seriously, there are Friday Night Magic events larger than these events and anyone with a basic knowledge statistics and variance should know better. Yet, people like you are jumping on these results, saying others have perpetuated a "fraud" against the Vintage community. People have a right to complain. People have a right to be angry with and/or disagree with the DCI's decisions. It would be hypocritical of me to think otherwise. I would prefer these people create their own threads detailing their frustrations rather than lobbing one-liners about "circle jerks" in the events that happen to fit their narrative.

    @wappla While fun might be arbitrary on an individual basis, it is not arbitrary on a collective basis. Many of Maro's points in his recent Metamorphasis 2.0 article discussed player reactions and feedback. He used the word "fun" three times, the word "enjoy" four times, and "(un)happy" three times. Insisting that Wizards not consider entertainment in their management, design, and policy concerning Magic in its many formats seems completely contrary to the goals of their company and ultimately unrealistic.


  • TMD Supporter

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

    @Smmenen This isn't about people complaining, it's about people overgeneralizing based on the results of a 50 person tournament. Seriously, there are Friday Night Magic events larger than these events and anyone with a basic knowledge statistics and variance should know better. Yet, people like you are jumping on these results, saying others have perpetuated a "fraud" against the Vintage community.

    It doesn't take that long to understand the impact of a restriction. You make it seem like it takes months to know.

    The only thing that sometimes takes a long time is for players to figure out how to abuse a new card (like Gifts Ungiven, which took a good 6 months before it really started seeing heavy play). The impact of a restriction is usually manifested very shortly. Restrictions aren't like new printings.

    My comments about the post-restriction metagame are based both on the underlying empirical data (which we now have 4 Challenges of data), and my understanding of the metagame and format, after having closely watched metagame cycles for more than 15 years now.

    You are on record agreeing with me that at least some of the DCI's predictions won't come true, and you did this before the results started rolling in. So, your opinion isn't entirely formed by underlying facts either, but an understanding of the metagame structure as well. Thus far, the facts fit the theory, and that's why players are upset. I am an empiricist, but I don't think we really need much more data to see the direction this metagame is headed.



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

    @Smmenen This isn't about people complaining, it's about people overgeneralizing based on the results of a 50 person tournament. Seriously, there are Friday Night Magic events larger than these events and anyone with a basic knowledge statistics and variance should know better. Yet, people like you are jumping on these results, saying others have perpetuated a "fraud" against the Vintage community. People have a right to complain. People have a right to be angry with and/or disagree with the DCI's decisions. It would be hypocritical of me to think otherwise. I would prefer these people create their own threads detailing their frustrations rather than lobbing one-liners about "circle jerks" in the events that happen to fit their narrative.

    @wappla While fun might be arbitrary on an individual basis, it is not arbitrary on a collective basis. Many of Maro's points in his recent Metamorphasis 2.0 article discussed player reactions and feedback. He used the word "fun" three times, the word "enjoy" four times, and "(un)happy" three times. Insisting that Wizards not consider entertainment in their management, design, and policy concerning Magic in its many formats seems completely contrary to the goals of their company and ultimately unrealistic.

    Great stuff, Matt. It is sad that the hard work you and Ryan do to perform this analysis is constantly push aside for this sort of argument. It really hides a lot of fantastic work.


  • TMD Supporter

    @The-Atog-Lord said in Vintage Challenge - 6/10/2017:

    Great stuff, Matt. It is sad that the hard work you and Ryan do to perform this analysis is constantly push aside for this sort of argument. It really hides a lot of fantastic work.

    No one is "pushing aside" or "hiding" any work. The entire purpose of metagame breakdowns is to understand the format, which can be used to make strategic decisions within the format, but which also necessarily implicates B&R policy and using this data to understand the effect of the restrictions. To suggest that these discussions mask or hide the underlying work a false dichotomy. The data is the underlying layer for the metagame and B&R discussion. They are the same discussion at different levels.

    There have been 4 Challenges, and the April P9 Challenge. It's not too early to draw some initial conclusions about the state of the current metagame.

    Direct link to the table: http://imgur.com/6GBrtGJ

    It's notable that the MOST amount of Mentor in these challenges was after the restrictions, not before. In fact, the three tournaments with the most Mentor has been all post-restriction.

    The restrictions appear to have had no meaningful effect at reducing the % of Mentor in the metagame or reducing the number of Shops decks, which is what the DCI predicted would occur on both counts. If anything, the opposite has (as I predicted it would).

    Back to Brassman's point about the corrosiveness of these discussions, I think the lesson is that the DCI should only ever undertake restrictions if there is a broad consensus about the need to do it, and broad consensus on the specific card to hit. I don't recall anyone complaining about Thirst or Treasure Cruise getting restricted. Everyone knew that was going to happen, and there was no question why.

    Only when you have a broad consensus do restrictions clear the hurdle of not obviously favoring one group over another.


  • TMD Supporter

    @Smmenen

    When Gush was last unrestricted, it took a long while before it started to become mainstream again. Initially people were continuing to play with Dark Confidant/Jace TMS/Time Vault decks while Gush would sporadically appear as Lotus Cobra brews. Why would you expect the metagame to mature so immediately now when it hasn't in the past?

    Gush was unrestricted September 2010 and it took almost a full year (Gen Con 2011) before it replaced Bob Jacevault as the best blue deck.



  • What implies a "broad consensus"? How does anyone formulate a "broad consensus"? These are challenges that are likely more difficult for WotC to obtain than their current method to determine when/if a restriction is necessary.



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

    What implies a "broad consensus"? How does anyone formulate a "broad consensus"? These are challenges that are likely more difficult for WotC to obtain than their current method to determine when/if a restriction is necessary.

    I don't disagree that its tough to define exactly what a broad consensus is when we have it. But its very easy to define when we do not have it. And in the case of the past few restrictions (even ones I agreed with) we did NOT have a broad consensus.


 

WAF/WHF