@chubbyrain said in February 12, 2018 Banned and Restricted Announcement:
@smmenen I can't speak for @diophan on his thoughts about the format, but I really didn't feel as if the format was huge factor. It was more we were dedicating time and effort into entering events solely to collect data
But you were doing that for a long, long time. I mean, you started putting together data reports just a month or two after I did one on the Power Nine challenges, like January 2016.
Why did it take until just the last few months for you and/or Ryan to finally feel the burn out? Sure, it's possible that two years of collecting data just took it's toll, and that the 25th or 26th month was the straw that broke the camels bsck. But its hard for me to conclude other than what neo altoid just said, that the quality of the format has played a role, however small. Counter-factually, if you thought the format was fantastic, even though you putting in the time and effort to do this work, would you feel it was a bear or a burden?
Put another way: You expressed deep dissatisfaction for many years about both Gush and Mentor. Now both cards are restricted, and it's only after those restrictions that you are now expression exhaustion with the format? I mean, that's a really unfortunate turn of events.
It's like begging for a new car, getting what you want after years of complaint, and suddenly deciding you prefer bicycling, after moving heaven and earth to get a new car. To wit:
From that perspective, the format isn't horrible. Outside of Ravager Shops, the format has a lot of diversity and space to explore. Now if you are a competitor and want to play the best deck or feel the deck you like is not at a competitive disadvantage against the field, I understand that frustration.
But this only underscores my concern: for years you complained about Gush and Mentor. Now Ravager Shops are just as dominant in terms of win % as Gush ever was, but the quote above is a kind of resigned shrug. For real? You took every opportunity to complain about the injustice and oppression of Gush and Mentor, but now hedge the dominance of Ravager Shops - which in terms of persistent win % is as bad or worse than anything Gush ever did - as an issue only "if you are a competitive player?"
I mean, seriously? Where was this sort of hedged analysis a year ago? I spent countless posts stating that there were other decks that were viable outside of Gush decks, even blue decks, and you would have none of it, dismissing them as not competitive. Now you happily bifurcate the format into 'competitive and non-competitive' decks, saying that the "format isn't horrible," 'from a certain point of view.' I feel like Luke in ROTJ about that.
This can't be real. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
You were were tough and hard-headed about calling for the DCI to restrict cards from the Mentor deck. You were a shrill and vocal Martinet for several years. Now, I can't believe how soft, accommodating and shy you in addressing the problem now before us. While you clearly assert that Shops are a problem, and even call for DCI action, your presentation, phrasing and framing of this issue is a sharp and remarkable contrast to how you've addressed the Gush and Mentor issue in the past. You won't even go so far as to suggest an action in this thread yet. Would that you were so generous in holding back when debating over Gush!
I find that very frustrating.
On the other hand, anyone who says that data is bad for the format should be promptly ignored. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's still ignorance. I thank you for your hard work.