October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement



  • @fsecco

    I would instead argue that what he wants is parity. Some people love the what we see in the NBA right now where there is a battle between two teams with the rest being noise. Others prefer the NFL where there are multiple teams in the running. Neither is absolutely right. I personally prefer multiple viable decks. I believe that in Magic, history supports that parity is more important. You rarely find that someone quits because there are too many viable decks. You do see it the other way. Some quit when their favorite card is restricted or banned, but I’d bet that Wizards knows the numbers and these numbers represent a smaller share than those who feel trapped in a meta they dislike.



  • @trius I find the meta quite diverse right now. That's what I'm hinting at. It's not Shops vs Oath, at all.



  • I'm not unhappy with the meta myself. I made a bit of noise a few months ago when I really was tired of the meta. I can see how some people think that it's still too restrictive. I don't think any amount of dialogue will make someone who feels that the format is unhealthy will change their mind. I sure would not have changed my mind a few months ago. I'd like misstep to go because I hate the card and really all phyrexian mana but I'm personally still having fun in this meta.



  • I spent money on cards that I don't even want to use anymore because there isn't anything fun these days that I enjoy playing. Tired of the same old bazaar/islands/shops strategies. I resent my decision to purchase these cards. Every vintage website, group and store that supports vintage should have a disclaimer that says:

    Vintage is bazaars/islands/shops only, you've been warned.

    Seriously, because If i had known this ahead of time, I would have never bought in. It doesn't make sense that the format with the largest card pool to choose from has the fewest playable options. It's downright stupid :(.



  • @bobbyvictory Look, I just think you have a lot of misconceptions about the format, that's all.
    You keep saying that a format with a large pool should be more diverse, but that has newer been true for Vintage. We don't have a banlist so we have to deal with all the mistakes R&D made in the last 24 years. So it seems obvious that the best cards of the game are always played and that it takes out a lot of other options. We don't have to play with Soothsaying or Portent because Top was banned like Legacy is doing. That's a characteristic of the format and it is what draws me to it.
    I have no idea of a single point in history where Vintage wasn't Islands x Bazaar x Workshops. At least not after Future Sight. Dark Ritual was the 4th pillar of Vintage but fell out of contention for several reasons.
    Só i don't know what you want, but it seems to me it isn't Vintage.
    And no, it's not dumb. The format has a lot going on for it and it played very different from other formats of Magic - we have fewer turn but a decision tree that's much, much, much more broad. Also, one thing that makes the "lack of diversity" not even feel that way is that the innate variance of the format makes games between similar decks play out very differently.
    I hate Legacy because every game is the same, and the decisions in every match you play are the same. There's never a reason to play CotV on 0 or 2 unless you're playing against oops all spells, for example. It gets boring really fast.

    Oh and one other thing: I kinda like metas with fewer decks. It makes me more able to understand it, and also makes my deck viable for a longer time so I don't have to spend money changing decks.

    EDIT: no need for disclaimers. You can go to mtgtop8 or tcdecks and figure it out on your own, like you should do with every format you get into.



  • @fsecco The metagame feels diverse but Champs is always diverse. Look at previous breakdowns. The issue is the metagame isn't really balanced. Shops winrate clearly marks it as the format's best deck and if it remains so, you will see the format homogenize around and against it. I'm playing my second match in a row against Shops in the leagues, and have noticed an uptick in the amount of Shops decks I've played against (the selective reporting of winning decks by WotC makes that hard to objectively quantify). Granted, I am 2-0 against it, but I've definitely pushed my deck pretty far to combat it and my worst matchups, Delver and BUG Fish, aren't seeing much play.



  • @ChubbyRain It sounds to me like shops is in the top spot, but is definitely beatable, that is like an ideal scenario to me as a deck builder. Especially if it is pushing out some of the decks that are bad matchups against decks that can prey on it.

    So we started doing some analysis of the decks that beat shops at EW (3-0 or better) and all of them were playing multiple pieces of main deck hate and had 8+ postboard, or were very fast combo decks.

    I maintain, if you are trying to beat shops and continue to lose to it with 1-2 main deck hate cards and 6+ blanks (misstep, pyroblast, flusterstorm) against the deck, you aren't actually trying that hard. IF you lost to dredge with less than 6 pieces of hate postboard, no one would bat an eye. Shops is better than dredge, MWP wise and a bigger slice of the meta. Make better decisions. Yes if dredge sideboard cards 6-8 raise the MWP from 50-80% those are high impact, except that you are likely to play dredge 1-2 times in a tournament and likely to play shops 2-3 times (depending on length) would you rather have losses from the former or latter.



  • I got paired to go to dredge twice grixis twice, jeskai, shops (stax even, dodged mud aggro), and doomsday. And i was in 10th and the jeskai, doomsday, and grixis were all in the later half of my rounds, meaning they were all X-1 or X-2.

    The top 8, even the top 16, doesnt define the meta properly.

    Keep in mind, meta at splits into two categories. Overall health, and health of the top tables. Workshops are clearly best, but this is always been true in vintage in that on archetype out performs. For awhile this was time vAult dark confidant decks. Afger that it was mentor. Now itd workshops.

    This isn't very scary to me. And I was one of the loudest complainers of workshops and dredge for the last four years. If anything needs to go from workshops, it is walking ballista, But I do feel better prepared decks can smash the current format wide open.

    Workshops with only 11 diseuptive elements (4 ravagee, 4 sphere, 1 thorn/trini/chalice) and oh have terrible storm combo match ups, for example. With the right outcome deck, I felt favorable against workshop, and I always just ROFLstomped Oath with that deck.

    Point being, the field is more diverse than people that werent there are giving it credit for, There is a top deck which is nothing new, and there are ways to fight it effectively.

    People need to innovate or try ideas instead of sitting with a thumb up their ass waiting for someone else to prove a cardor strategy.



  • @chubbyrain I didn't mean it because of champs. The last Top 8s in the format feel pretty ok to me.



  • Edit: OP was harsh, so I removed it. I am frustrated though...this seems to come up repeatedly every time a potential Shops or Shops-related restriction comes up.

    @garbageaggro The issue was never beating Shops. The book has changed with Shops in recent years, but it's still beatable. It's always been beatable. And of course it gets more beatable the more hate you add. The problem is that this is normally bad metagaming to do so. There simply isn't enough Shops decks to justify the inclusion of massive amounts of hate. Sure, you could win the metagame lottery and play against Shops every round with a hate deck. You are more likely to end up like me at Champs, beating up on your one Shops opponent with your 3 Grudges, while getting knocked out of contention by Merfolk and Colorless Eldrazi.

    The truth is people aren't trying to beat Shops. They are trying to win tournaments. What most people should be doing is playing Ravager Shops themselves, but because of card availability and player preference they are not. And so it's not worth the deck and SB slots. That leaves an unbalanced format where Shops consistently has a win rate considerably higher than other decks. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people are building their decks wrong and Shops is addressable given the metagame constraints. That's why Ryan and I continue to invest tons of time in collecting data from every available source we can get our hands on.

    What I do know is that the "Shops is beatable" and "People aren't trying to beat it" arguments need to die. They are flawed and frankly insulting - it assumes that players are not rational deck builders (or net deckers) and instead idiots ramming their heads into Mishra's Bigly Wall repeatedly until they end up with CTE.



  • I wonder how much budget prizes goes into to shifting the meta as well for champs. Champs is a pretty unique tournament as it is the largest sanctioned paper event each year. How many budget decks were in the room, maybe 15% of the event? And how many were playing null rod, most? This was part of the reason why I played shops at champs. With less spheres we can't really lock out decks that play the full set of moxen and other artifact mana, so all of the big blue/PO decks will likely be able to hurkyls into a win. Those matchups are actually pretty scary for the aggressive creature deck. Shops lists online often are playing 2-4 null rods because they are likely to face against PO. But when I know at champs there will naturally be more null rods, I can hedge and ignore PO and assume that if I make it to 3-0 without playing against it, that I've likely dodged a bad matchup for the day. With more null rods in the room, by the middle of the tournament the top tables shift to be more fair decks, or oath that isn't as reliant on fast mana. This is exactly what you want to see as a shops player (minus the oath) and is what you see when you look at the top 16, a lot of fair blue decks.

    I'm not saying here that shops isn't the best deck. It clearly is based on mtgo results. I'm just suggesting that the unique meta of champs naturally having more null rod might have contributed to shops dominant performance rather than it just having a good performance. Shops is both the best deck in the format and was the best deck for the meta of champs, these two things combined always leads to dominance of the event, but not necessarily long term dominance.



  • @chubbyrain said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    @garbageaggro The issue was never beating Shops. The book has changed with Shops in recent years, but it's still beatable. It's always been beatable. And of course it gets more beatable the more hate you add. The problem is that this is normally bad metagaming to do so. There simply isn't enough Shops decks to justify the inclusion of massive amounts of hate. Sure, you could win the metagame lottery and play against Shops every round with a hate deck. You are more likely to end up like me at Champs, beating up on your one Shops opponent with your 3 Grudges, while getting knocked out of contention by Merfolk and Colorless Eldrazi.

    I feel this is contradictory with a few other comments I've been hearing. Bobby and other people have being saying for pages that the meta is "too narrow and only 3 decks are viable" and now you say Shops is hard to battle because there are a bunch of other decks that aren't Shops in the meta...
    Losing because you overprepared for 1 matchup is normal for every format. Sometimes you pick a deck that has a bad matchup and get lucky not to get it for the whole tournament and win. I had a few of those back when Eldrazi was a bomb in Legacy but I couldn't beat Shardless BUG never ever. So I won the couple of tournaments I never saw BUG in front of me. That's just how it goes, and I don't anything wrong with your record in EW - you prepared to face Tier 1 decks and got beat by "rogue" decks. It happens in every good family.



  • @fsecco Bobby is lumping all blue decks together. Shops is 20% of most metagames. This isn't contradictory.

    And, sigh... Yes, decks have good and bad matchups. Yes, sometimes players get unlucky or lucky pairings. This is the reason we collect metagame data. The important part of balancing a metagame is understanding the totality of good and bad matchups. It's about looking at the collective, not waving your hands in the air saying, "it happens". Of course it happens. How often does it happen? That is the crux of the matter.



  • @chubbyrain No need to bold anything, I understand how data works and that what matters are win%. I was just stating that you being knocked out on EW by two non-shops decks is... worthless as data.
    I think Shops has had this kind of 20-25% presence (in top 8s) for ages now. Ages. What we have to decide is if that's part of the format or if that's weird and shouldn't be there. I for one think that, with Shops gone, the format won't open up. It will shrink in diversity and in average turns per game. So I prefer having 25% Shops than restricting Shops and restricting PO or whatever other stuff right after it.



  • @fsecco It wasn't presented as data - it was an anecdote. You want data? We've collected enough of it...



  • My thing is: it has been only 2 months since the last restriction. I'm used to a format where we have time to adapt and test things. We are not being given that kind of time, mostly because I believe R&D screwed up twice (CotV before Golem; Gush before Mentor). Let's just give ourselves some time to brew, come on. It's the first time ever Shops wins and it has a normal and expected presence in the meta. I have no idea why the panic mode has been turned on here - other than the very atypical top 8 we just got. If that Top 8 becomes the norm, then yes we should do something. It has not though.



  • @chubbyrain said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    @fsecco It wasn't presented as data - it was an anecdote. You want data? We've collected enough of it...

    I look at the data, and I love the work you guys put in this stuff. It's very important for the format and although you probably already know it it's never too much to say. But look, it's right there in the post:
    @diophan said in North American Eternal Weekend 2017 Metagame Breakdown:

    Although the top 8 implied a two deck format, looking deeper reveals a healthier situation, with multiple archetypes on the bubble of top 8 appearances.

    EDIT: If a couple of results in the last round were different, the Top 8 could have 3 shops, 2 Oath 2 Blue, 1 Dredge or whatever and we wouldn't have been discussing this, would we? That's why we can't be passionate about 1 result.



  • @chubbyrain said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    hey are trying to win tournaments. What most people should be doing is playing Ravager Shops themselves, but because of card availability and player preference they are not. And so it's not worth the deck and SB slots. That leaves an unbalanced format where Shops consistently has a win rate considerably higher than other decks. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe people are building their decks wrong and Shops is addressable given the metagame constraints. That's why Ryan and I continue to invest tons of time in collecting data from every available source we can get our hands on.

    So is it up to the B&R list to handle the fact that people are (by preference) not playing shops enough given its matchup win percentage? If you think so, i feel like we can have a different conversation, but to me the time for intervention is when something sees a ton of play, has a huge % of the meta, and people still can't beat it. (Affinity in standard way back when)

    Edit:
    I guess what I am saying is if the rational thing is to play shops right now, because until a certain % of the meta game is shops you will get reward because people won't play the hate needed to beat you. People don't do that, except for folks like Rich, who as it turned out made the right call and top 2d the event. I don't know, the current state of vintage feels to me like it is rewarding the people who make the right meta calls, and punishing the people that try to make something else work instead. If enough people make the right meta call it is super easy to beat the deck.

    This actually feels exactly like Survival getting banned in legacy because people weren't playing the decks that beat it enough (combo). That probably weakens my point, because I think I am in the minority about survival, but I want the B&R lists to be based on what happens when people react correctly to the meta.



  • @fsecco That's what the restricted list is for. Axe Misstep and a card from shops already. Tired of the same circle jerk of decks from the last 3 years. Format needs diversity. Islands/bazaar/shops is a joke and things need to change.



  • @fsecco said in October 17, 2017 Banned & Restricted announcement:

    EDIT: If a couple of results in the last round were different, the Top 8 could have 3 shops, 2 Oath 2 Blue, 1 Dredge or whatever and we wouldn't have been discussing this, would we? That's why we can't be passionate about 1 result.

    And if my aunt had a package she’d be my uncle, what’s your point?


Locked
 

WAF/WHF

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