Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop



  • @wfain

    Yes that does seem rather narrow. I've played Dredge variants that have fully transformed and did not use their graveyard at all post board. It was still a Dredge / GY deck. The same was true of Dragon Reanimator that transformed into Tezzeret.

    @brianpk80

    Brian, let me shift the debate a bit here and focus on the "6 sideboard cards" portion of the argument. If say tomorrow Wizards comes out and restricts: Stinkweed Imp, Golgari-Grave Troll and Serum Power (all fairly exclusive cards to dredge) would you stop playing 4 Tormod's Crypts + 2 Spyglass in your Oath sideboard altogether? Would you stop playing Containment Priest and/or Grafdigger's Cages in your non-Oath decks? If so, what would you replace these cards with and how would they help you to combat the growing problem of Ballista Shops and Outcome storm?



  • @vaughnbros said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    @brianpk80

    Brian, let me shift the debate a bit here and focus on the "6 sideboard cards" portion of the argument. If say tomorrow Wizards comes out and restricts: Stinkweed Imp, Golgari-Grave Troll and Serum Power (all fairly exclusive cards to dredge) would you stop playing 4 Tormod's Crypts + 2 Spyglass in your Oath sideboard altogether? Would you stop playing Containment Priest and/or Grafdigger's Cages in your non-Oath decks? If so, what would you replace these cards with and how would they help you to combat the growing problem of Ballista Shops and Outcome storm?

    Like I said above, I'm not advocating toning Dredge down because I need help not losing to other decks. I'm opposed to the fact that it's run amok without intervention for far too long now and creates near universal misery in a format people play for fun.


  • TMD Supporter

    I was about to wade into this debate and take umbrage with one of the most egregious claims in this entire thread. But before one argues with the great @brianpk80, it's a smart idea to do some research first. Ray of Light was released in March of 1998, so it slips outside the 20yr mark. 🙂

    @brianpk80

    One thing we can all agree one I'm sure is that Madonna's career has taken a terrible nose-dive in the past 20 years, due to terrible songwriting decisions. I hope that engenders solidarity.

    Carry on.



  • @brianpk80

    One thing we can all agree one I'm sure is that Madonna's career has taken a terrible nose-dive in the past 20 years, due to terrible songwriting decisions. I hope that engenders solidarity.

    Brian Kelly: Engendering solidarity since 1998.... LOL



  • @brianpk80 said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    One thing we can all agree one I'm sure is that Madonna's career has taken a terrible nose-dive in the past 20 years, due to terrible songwriting decisions. I hope that engenders solidarity.

    You know, I didn't really think it had been 20 years. But yeah, it's 20 years.



  • @brianpk80 said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    Madonna..... terrible nose-dive

    And holy fuck is that a BIG nose to dive.



  • @joshuabrooks said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    I was about to wade into this debate and take umbrage with one of the most egregious claims in this entire thread. But before one argues with the great @brianpk80, it's a smart idea to do some research first. Ray of Light was released in March of 1998, so it slips outside the 20yr mark. 🙂

    @brianpk80

    One thing we can all agree one I'm sure is that Madonna's career has taken a terrible nose-dive in the past 20 years, due to terrible songwriting decisions. I hope that engenders solidarity.

    Carry on.

    Why thank you.

    @neo_altoid said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    You know, I didn't really think it had been 20 years. But yeah, it's 20 years.

    Indeed. And the album speaks for itself.

    0_1533733804576_Matunga2.png


  • TMD Supporter

    This thread went into the dumpster for a minute, glad to see we're still able to recover without mod interference.

    On topic, it's kind of funny thinking of @brianpk80 as the grandfather of all shops players while being known for playing oath. Very "I brought you into this world, I'll take you back out".



  • dredge is fine. if anything tormod's crypt needs to be restricted


  • TMD Supporter

    @brianpk80 said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    @vaughnbros said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    @brianpk80

    Brian, let me shift the debate a bit here and focus on the "6 sideboard cards" portion of the argument. If say tomorrow Wizards comes out and restricts: Stinkweed Imp, Golgari-Grave Troll and Serum Power (all fairly exclusive cards to dredge) would you stop playing 4 Tormod's Crypts + 2 Spyglass in your Oath sideboard altogether? Would you stop playing Containment Priest and/or Grafdigger's Cages in your non-Oath decks? If so, what would you replace these cards with and how would they help you to combat the growing problem of Ballista Shops and Outcome storm?

    Like I said above, I'm not advocating toning Dredge down because I need help not losing to other decks. I'm opposed to the fact that it's run amok without intervention for far too long now and creates near universal misery in a format people play for fun.

    Is there any empirical evidence to support this claim? It's hard to tell since the total numbers aren't published, but it looks like Vintage Challenge attendance is roughly in range of where it's been all year. Hard to see any drop off.

    And only 1 out of 28 Top 8 decklists from July was Dredge. It appears as though there were only 2 Dredge decks in the top 8s of the last 5 Challenges.

    The only deck that looks like it might still be too good is Shops, which was 32% of Top 8s in July. The next best performing deck was PO, which was 21%, and included both PO Control and PO TPS decks.



  • @smmenen said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    Is there any empirical evidence to support this claim? It's hard to tell since the total numbers aren't published, but it looks like Vintage Challenge attendance is roughly in range of where it's been all year. Hard to see any drop off.

    Gurl, we've moved on. This is the thread for Madonna's post-excellence era.

    To answer your question, even though it's now off topic (lol 😉 ), yes unfortunately, there has been a consistent drop in attendance in the Northeast. The big Mox event at TDG (won by a mysterious deck called Snakestill by a guy in a tie, described as "looking like Tom Sawyer going to a job interview" [it was very very hot that day, yes, I rolled my pants up]) only attracted 31 players 😞 and TPG which supported Vintage for a decade stopped having events due to low turnout.

    We asked around to see why so many people didn't want to play anymore and the most common answer was "the metagame." Shops got the most complaints but there is malaise with Paradoxical and Dredge as well.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @Smmenen, @brianpk80

    There are two reasons for declining attendance in the northeast. First (and I think this is bigger)--the playerbase is getting meaningfully older on average. It used to be a 20s crowd, and the set of goons hasn't changed significantly. I suspect that the median age at TDG was like 32, when 5 years ago it might have been 27-29. People have more responsibilities, and it's a lot harder to justify the day out when you have other meaningful and productive things to do (which is why, I think MTGO hasn't suffered as much--MTGO is "I stayed home, and played the challenge," for example).

    Second, it is the metagame. PO, Dredge, and Shops aren't too good, but they are less interactive and lead to fewer games where you felt like your playskill mattered when playing against them (Shops is better than PO is better than Dredge along these "by feel" metrics--don't throw data at me, because it's very much not a data driven analysis). PO and Dredge, in particular, have a high fail rate/busted rate--for every 4x Mox, Outcomes, Force, Blue card, there's the game of "Lotus, 2 lands, PO, PO, Preordain" that goes nowhere fast, and the playskill involved in "Tap Bazaar, 2x Hollow One, so sorry that you kept Crypt and Rest in Peace" isn't really high (and, to wit, the other side of "I needed to normal dredge, and you kept Crypt and Rest in Peace...this was bad for me"). Your skill matters--but the shift between deck construction being the relevant skill to Vintage and play being the relevant skill has swung towards construction being more relevant of late.


  • TMD Supporter

    I agree that PO and Dredge aren't too good, but the data lend some support to the view that Shops are still too good. Shops in the January and August Vintage Challenges have the exact same Top 8 penetration at 32-33%.

    In any case, I don't believe that the 'feel' of the metagame in terms of whether a metagame feels more or less interactive really drives Vintage tournament attendance. If we could survey players in different points in time and ask two questions:

    1. Rate your level of interest in the Vintage format or enthusiasm based upon the current metagame with 1 being the least, and 10 being the most.

    2. Rate the degree of interactivity you feel exists in the current Vintage format or metagame with 1 being the least and 10 being the most.

    I would expect that there would be zero statistical significant correlation, or possibly even a weak negative correlation between those two questions. That's because I think other factors are far more important.

    Personally, I think one of the best metagames ever was the metagame where TPS was the best deck (June 2008-Sept. 2008), and not far behind that, where Grim Long/Pitch Long was. Or, another great metagame was when Necro decks were best.

    Or, conversely, some of the intensely villified Gush metagames were probably among the most interactive in the history of the format, but nonetheless hated for "pushing out" other blue strategies.

    I don't doubt that some folks are unhappy with the metagame, and may use that as a reason not to play paper magic right now, but that's a very small sample size, and there doesn't appear to be any decline in the Vintage Challenges from a longitudinal perspective that supports the view that this particular metagame (PO/Shops/etc.) is worse than any other particular one.



  • @brianpk80 that tom sawyer interview line was one of my all time bests 😉



  • @neo_altoid i don't think the summer factor can be dismissed in tournament attendance in the north east. I have been part of the greater ny area competitive vintage scene on and off for 15+ years and summer is often slow for magic. Perhaps tdg can show a straight line decline in attendance for the past year, I cant say. I would also add that modern is a spectacular format right now, with a diverse metagame and high levels of support from wizards. I know several locals who have put their vintage decks aside to explore modern.

    I have less of an issue with the format than others, but if you show up at any given 30-40 man event, you can easily run into dredge, outcome and shops in your first three rounds, and if you are on fair blue.dec, you may end up with three un-interactive rounds through no fault of your own, and i can see where that would be a turn off to burning a beautiful saturday in July at. Comic shop literally sweating it out for a mox and 100 credit for second place.



  • @smmenen I've been playing for a while, but I'm not quite that old! I'd rate some of my favorite metagames as "Right before Khans" (so, Pyromancer Gush existed, but not "Everything is Gush"). Re: your question, I think you'd find a medium high positive correlation, but I could easily be wrong. I think people hate being randomly blown out more than anything else, which is a measure of interactivity, but it's not perfect. Gush era was very interactive, but the fact was that there were a pretty large proportion of games where two sides ground out eachothers cards, then one person drew gush and the game ended.

    I guess I'd describe a good metagame as one where you lose by 1-2 cards, rather than 5. For example, you should be able to have the bad beat of "I had EE in hand to beat him, but he drew Wasteland so I died." Or "I just needed a removal spell for his Delver, and I was golden!"--things where the margins between victory and defeat are small. The reward for tight play--picking up slight advantages--hasn't felt as big as it used to be.

    @p3temangus That risk is why I don't go and play as much. I think the odds of 0x good games when going to play Vintage is shockingly high. If I play Modern, the odds of 2-3x good matches out of 4 (even if I'm on the losing end) is essentially 100%.



  • @neo_altoid said in Brian Kelly is actually responsible for the Unrestriction of Mishra's Workshop:

    @smmenen I've been playing for a while, but I'm not quite that old! I'd rate some of my favorite metagames as "Right before Khans" (so, Pyromancer Gush existed, but not "Everything is Gush"). Re: your question, I think you'd find a medium high positive correlation, but I could easily be wrong. I think people hate being randomly blown out more than anything else, which is a measure of interactivity, but it's not perfect. Gush era was very interactive, but the fact was that there were a pretty large proportion of games where two sides ground out eachothers cards, then one person drew gush and the game ended.

    I guess I'd describe a good metagame as one where you lose by 1-2 cards, rather than 5. For example, you should be able to have the bad beat of "I had EE in hand to beat him, but he drew Wasteland so I died." Or "I just needed a removal spell for his Delver, and I was golden!"--things where the margins between victory and defeat are small. The reward for tight play--picking up slight advantages--hasn't felt as big as it used to be.

    @p3temangus That risk is why I don't go and play as much. I think the odds of 0x good games when going to play Vintage is shockingly high. If I play Modern, the odds of 2-3x good matches out of 4 (even if I'm on the losing end) is essentially 100%.

    Well said and I entirely agree with how you ranked the three worst offenders--Dredge is the worst, followed by Paraodixcal, followed by Shops.

    Typical Dredge match goes like this, an account one of I experienced earlier. Opponent plays Bazaar. "Let's go to g2." Opponent mulls to 3. "Let's go to g3." Opponent plays Bazaar and Forces Dredge hate. "Good games." [and we're done, ie I'm not going to sit here and watch you masturbate].

    Bear in mind, I have a reasonable win rate v. Dredge, it's just that my decisions or even existence there have almost nothing to do with the outcome. These are comically low quality experiences and they're increasing in frequency.

    Force of Will being now supported by Dredge is an enormous problem for the format. Its prior inability to interact competently on the stack was one of the only plausible redeeming factors that excused its presence.

    And the solution will have nothing to do with poring over metagame %'s which has been the wrong lens, but more obviously now that Wizards outright said it's subordinate to other factors, namely promoting our happiness. Inducing players to follow this narrow mathematical analysis has misled the community. Analyzing results %'s and then fabricating an arbitrary system of thresholds to pretend what life would be like if the DCI actually used it is fanciful and absurd.



  • Surprised to hear all the hate for Dredge. Its existence has always been for me (to use an overused expression) a feature of the Vintage experience, not a bug.



  • Well, nobody likes to lose. The reason/particulars are often irrelevant. I remember back in the days of TPS how masturbatory (non-interactive) it seemed to me, and later similarly with 13-sphere Stax. Orchard + mox = Oath wasn't much better. Winning vintage designs have for a long time been all about making your deck as non-interactive as possible. These were definitely beatable, however, so the question with Dredge should be, "Can any necessary metagame adjustments be made by the players while maintaining a healthy diversity?"

    As for games being decided by eking out a gradual advantage through strategically outmaneuvering your opponent: those are the best games of Magic.


Locked
 

WAF/WHF