Contempt for the meta-game



  • I actually think this is all completely off.
    The idea that the format is stale (IMHO) is coming from a place of optimism and want for improvement. Not contempt. Vintage would be horrible if it was the same 4 decks getting passed around. People wan't to innovate!
    There has to be a reason to do that.



  • @john-cox I think it's both. I have great optimism (especially as new cards are printed) that new decks and archetypes can become great in Vintage - not just viable. But there is also contempt - in the reluctance of many to try an innovate as opposed to thinking "if it wasn't made/played in the VSL, it CAN'T be viable."



  • @rat3de hit me up at some point, and I can bring you in something else...



  • @rat3de If you bought a paper dredge deck for $200, you have to tell me where you are buying your cards. I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.



  • Contempt is pretty strong. More indifference from me right now. I share some of the same views made above.

    I do feel like vintage has been muddled with the other formats. Many vintage decks are essentially just modern/legacy decks with power. It was not that long ago when vintage decks did not look like decks from any other format.

    I don't like a lot of the cards printed recently, especially G.probe, Dig, and Mental Misstep.

    Misstep greatly limits my ability to brew which is part of what fuels my fun in an environment.

    I don't hate blue, but I do dislike that WOTC gave up on the balancing aspect of blue which was supposed to be poor creatures. Instead, blue has the highest percentage of best creatures among the elite creatures (Delver, Snapcaster, True-name, V.Clique all make my top ten list for best creatures).

    Mostly though I am just not that interested in the competitive decks at the moment. I would love for something to shake up the environment in a different way. While PO is fairly new, all it really did was replace storm in the meta so it feels similar. Hollow One just made Dredge competitive again but it's essentially the same deck. I want something that shakes the format up a bit but is not so broken that it's just a short term meta that will be fixed via B&R. I'm not sure what that would take. I think the most obvious way to do this is drastic changes to the current B&R either with a lot of removals or additions, or with some rules changes (like banning instead of restricting) These are very controversial and would bring a bunch of discord. Eventually the meta will shift. It always does and when it does, I'll play more vintage.



  • @Thewhitedragon69 My LGS allows up to 15 proxies for vintage so all the expensive stuff like Bazaar of Baghdad and Force of Will are proxies. I posted the list in the strategy section and I could update it to show proxies if you would like.

    @rbartlet I really appreciate the offer, but I would like to just try the deck right now and play vintage as it will be my first time, and I will be making many rookie mistakes since I get really nervous while playing with adults. If you are going to the tournament this weekend it would be a pleasure to meet you, and I may very well take up the offer at another point in time if I feel the need. I think it is very kind and generous of you to do this and I would just like to say thank you.



  • @thewhitedragon69 said in Contempt for the meta-game:

    @john-cox I think it's both. I have great optimism (especially as new cards are printed) that new decks and archetypes can become great in Vintage - not just viable. But there is also contempt - in the reluctance of many to try an innovate as opposed to thinking "if it wasn't made/played in the VSL, it CAN'T be viable."

    But people still change up sideboards and swap in cards, no one plays carbon copies of net deck lists. Thats innovating too.



  • @john-cox To me, changing a sb to best what you'll face in your local tourney is meta-tuning. That's not innovating. If you go deep into the bin and make a new sb or core strategy revolving a totally chalked-off card and overlap by several cards, I can see that as innovation. Changing a netdeck 75 to swap some number of REBs for mindbreak traps and ingot chewers for by force is hardly innovation. Again, I take my novel analogy. If I took Tom Sawyer and changed a single word on every page, that's not innovation, nor is it my work. Small tweaks are just that - tweaks. Innovation is going a direction nobody else has tried or making cards nobody sees as good into something good.
    When slaver, a long time ago, used strategic planning, that's straddling the line between innovation and tweaking. The other 71 cards was about as stock as it gets, but the guy found something new that nobody tried using before. If someone takes 75 and changes 10 cards, but those 10 cards are common substitutions for said cards, that's not innovation. Changing ingot chewers for shattering spree is not innovation.



  • I think maybe it's also worth saying, that Vintage is a highly rarefied format where pleasure has to be in some part derived from the careful choice of saying: "Yes, yes, but what if I played SNOW COVERED Island? Eh? Eh?"

    For me, loving vintage is, at its heart I think, about loving the considered nuance of correctly baiting a FoW, Choosing Inferno Titan over Emrakul, Metamorphing a Sphere when you might want to Metamorph Revoker, or knowing when to 3 for 1 yourself to keep a lock piece off of the board.

    I absolutely second @JosefK in that enthusiasm for the format is critical. Being enthusiastic about vintage by and large means being enthusiastic about hairline deck building decisions and the exquisite specificity of the question "Okay, sure, but what do you cut to add [Pet Card] to this already excellent shell?" It's different than being enthusiastic about other formats. Vintage may have the splashiest effects, but sometimes being able to execute those means enjoying the (sometimes rather tedious) process of making profound decisions like: "Add Delta here? Or Strand? Hmmm."

    As an aside to point of access. I think many here might agree that in many ways, because of proxies/playtest cards, Vintage is much more accessible than other formats.

    As such, it makes me wonder if people are just turned off a format where they might lose to a deck with a Basic Plains Sharpie Lotus. It's as if players double down on the "You have to own the cards to play the game" mentality, and as such shut themselves out of some of the most fun magic gameplay there is!



  • @thewhitedragon69 said in Contempt for the meta-game:

    Changing ingot chewers for shattering spree is not innovation.

    What about for Offalsnouts?


 

WAF/WHF