@chubbyrain said in JULY 2, 2018 BANNED AND RESTRICTED UPDATE:
Edit: @Smmenen? I actually think the restrictions of Gush, Mentor, 2 Delve spells, and 3 lock pieces have created more entertaining and interactive games with more diversity in deck selection. Hinging an entire formats health on one card seems frankly absurd.
My belief is that restricting PO would basically rewind Vintage back to last November, which was a disaster, but after all those restrictions.
What changed since was that PO with Hurkyls has been retuned to trump Shops, opening up the metagame.
Restrict PO, and you go back to the format as it was last November.
Thats why i said the following on twlink textitter & earlier in this thread:
Paradoxical Outcome is the glue keeping the Vintage format & metagame balanced & diverse.
It’s Shops predator. Restrict it & the format goes back to the hot mess it was for the preceding 5 years. Restricting it is a bad idea, especially since it is not remotely dominant.
PO strategies are the proximate cause, in my estimation, of this opening up of the metagame.
On a general note, the users saying that "fun should never be factored into B&R decisions" are making emotional appeals to an arbitrary sense of justice and not dealing with reality. It's pretty clear that Wizards takes fun into consideration when designing sets and managing formats. It's a game, not a court of law. The purpose is fun, not justice
Im not sure whether you are referring to my posts, since I never said any of the statements you are arguing against. I agree with the premise that the purpose of DCI policy is to promote fun.
To be clear, fun has many facets, but there is broad consensus that fun formats provide diverse competitive options.
Years ago I wrote a long post or article that attempted to delineate the various facets of fun, and came to the conclusion that the key to fun is “meaningful choice.” This concept applies to deck selection, in-game play, sideboarding, etc.
Therefore, the interest in promoting format diversity is actually serving the ultimate goal of fostering a fun format. Thus, when I say that metagame diversity is the primary and most important ground for restriction, I am essentially saying the same thing as the pupose of restricted list policy is to promote fun, not the opposite.
The problem is that multiple facets of ‘fun’ can be in tension. Restricting cards on grounds other than competitive balance & strategic diversity ultimately risks reducing the one ground that virtually everyone believes is a prerequisite for ‘fun.’
I am not categorically opposed to restricting cards on grounds other than dominance (see http://www.eternalcentral.com/so-many-insane-plays-suggested-banned-and-restricted-list-updates-2018/ for a fuller elaboration of my views on B&R Policy). But the bar should be high, since any restriction on grounds other than dominance is likely to undermine format strategic diversity.