Thoughts on restrictions



  • @Smmenen said:

    saying 99% of shops are artifacts is not a minor detail. It underscores how fast and loose you are with facts, and relationship between your ideas here and reality.

    Your argument is wrong, but you are ignoring the reasons presented as to why already presented in this thread. E.g. Terra Nova, and point 3 in my previous post. Wizards wants to dissuade players from playing narrow strategies, or, at least, impose a cost that requires counter tactics, and therefore design space (card slots) that could be used differently. That makes those strategies less effective and efficient.

    I don't really care if it's 95% instead of 99%. That doesn't undermine my argument. I also don't care enough about your nitpick to go calculate the actual number.

    Terra Nova is an example of a hate card forcing a deck to abandon a linear strategy? That's news to me, as well as the Terra Nova players. THIS is playing fast and loose with the fundamental facts of the situation, not getting some number off by a couple percentage points.

    I readily acknowledge there are a few corner cases where hate pushes someone off a linear strategy. I even listed two of them. The vast majority of the time, however, it does not, which makes your point 3 totally invalid. You claim these cards push players off of linear strategies, but overall that claim is just false. Adding an extra exception to the two I mentioned already does not change the overall picture.


  • TMD Supporter

    @ajfirecracker

    Narrow, not linear. It does impose a cost. Adding a countertactic not only adds a step in the game plan, but takes up space, and dilutes efficiency and speed. That's all for the good.

    As I said:
    Wizards wants to dissuade players from playing narrow strategies, or, at least, impose a cost that requires counter tactics, and therefore design space (card slots) that could be used differently. That makes those strategies less effective and efficient.

    Be sure to focus on the second part of the quote, because your answer is not responsive.



  • OK, yeah, that's a good point.

    However, you're interjecting that into me already saying that narrow strategies aren't usually pushed off their narrow strategy by hate (in response to @BazaarOfBaghdad). It's not a refutation of what I'm saying so much as a counterpoint (which is conditional on accepting what I'm saying)


  • TMD Supporter

    @ajfirecracker said:

    OK, yeah, that's a good point.

    However, you're interjecting that into me already saying that narrow strategies aren't usually pushed off their narrow strategy by hate (in response to Bazaar of Baghdad). It's not a refutation of what I'm saying so much as a counterpoint (which is conditional on accepting what I'm saying)

    I still think you are wrong that very few decks strategically diversify in response to hate. But my counterpoint here accepts your premise for the sake of argument to demonstrate the flaws in your larger arg.



  • So suppose few decks diversify in the face of hate (instead adopting anti-hate tactics) and that they pay a metagame price for it. There's no direct line from that to more meaningful non-obvious decisions than would result from restricting the narrow strategy, printing actually-interactive hate, or avoiding narrow-strategy-vs-hate design in the first place.

    I think you're exhibiting a strong status quo bias (and many of the pro-hatebears folks are as well) where if someone said they can't interact on the stack and demand a new hatebear to prevent them from having to do that, you and many others would disapprove. It's not hard to adapt many of the comments in this thread to exactly that theme - "If you can't interact on the stack, play a different strategy. Quit whining, pure stack-based decks aren't even that good". Because the hatebear does exist, it must be a good thing, even if you would have opposed its creation in the first place. If you remove that strong status quo bias, I think the argument I am making (i.e. we print a particular kind of hate card in the future) is really hard to distinguish from the request for hatebear cards.

    I also don't think you have even a remote leg to stand on, because you keep making arguments about why we should have hate, something I have never contested and which my ultimate goal in this argument (to print future hate cards whose effect is split over a larger number of turns or games) actually relies upon. Every argument you make about how great it is to force narrow strategies to diversify applies in favor of my ultimate point, because I am willing to allow stronger hate cards than already exist

    You think I am saying something like:
    We shouldn't have such strong hate, because it's not fun to play against.

    I am actually saying:
    We should have strong hate, but it should be of a kind that's fun to play against.

    Grafdigger's Cage is perfectly compatible with a 60%+ winrate for Dredge.

    I am perfectly happy to print some sort of ultra-Tormod's Crypt which applies even more pressure to Dredge to diversify (say, pushing the deck to a 40% winrate instead of 60%) but which is more interactive (and such an effect is possible by splitting the disruption over a larger number of games or turns)



  • To put it succinctly: Don't stop a narrow strategy by making it non-fun, stop a narrow strategy by making it non-competitive.



  • So you're suggesting that printing a mega-Tormod's Crypt with 2 use counters before saccing (instead of the current one-use version) rather than Containment Priest/Rest in Peace in order to heighten game state choices would be more fun/interactive? I mean, I grasp that idea of interactive choices, and to some extent I can agree, but that ship has rather sailed, hasn't it, and was intuited by the larger argument anyway (what to do about it now)? Priest/RIP are already in print, and the proper forum to complain is elsewhere really, not here.



  • I may not be completely following everything said here, but can someone clarify a few things for me?

    1. Is the anti-hatebear sentiment (or as it is perceived) that the deck is too good? If so, by what metric? By its 'tier', by its marque wins, something else?
      As far as I can tell, hatebears is necessarily not a tier 1 strategy since it responds to the dominant decks, unless the complaint is that there is an effect on a bear that counters all possible strategies in Vintage and that the hatebear decks can defeat all of those strategies in some stock list. If that's not the case, which I strongly suspect, then the critique or issue seems more to do with the metagame of vintage.
      What I see as the claimed issue is that hatebears do double duty by disrupting and simultaneously furthering the decks own gameplan. And the argument would then be that Lodestone Golem was guilty of the same thing, if I'm steelmanning here. However, my response would be that Lodestone does triple duty actually, by disrupting, advancing, and preventing. We are then back to the idea that shops (with LSG) is/was tier 1, and hatebears are not a valid comparison I would think.

    2. Are people okay with a deck being too good, and what would that even mean? Are people okay with some decks having completely lopsided matchups?
      I understand what @ajfirecracker is getting at with his dislike or targeted, continuous hate. My impression is that people are willing to adapt to such hate (a la Grafdigger's Cage, say), but not if said hate is on a human. I don't quite understand the difference if it's not what I explored above. Even then, the room for 'permissable' hate is so narrow. I've seen compaints if that hate is on a land, on a creature, on an artifact (even on enchantment because they're 'harder' to remove). If that's your position (that hatebears are oppressive in their hate and you're not coming at it from the @ajfirecracker side of things), what is okay hate to print?

    3. Is the pro-hatebear sentiment that having such a deck can punish decks and opens up design space in the format?
      This seems to be a defensible position to me, since a varied metagame is more desirable to me. Do others object to that statement?
      I do think that hatebears should be more varied among subtypes, but that is just my personal opinion, since it both makes deck construction more interesting and makes more sense flavorwise in lots of cases.

    Anyways, those are some questions that I have and some of my own thoughts, for what it's worth.



  • By the way, I am not a big fan of this false hatebear dichotomy that firecracker has used without me contesting before. I've played and done well with hatebears, and my arguments here have coincided likely with their general well-being, but my perspective is far more neutral than that. I could care less about their success merits or overall strength. Instead, I just think this whole anti-metagame expectations that has encapsulated at least some of the posts in this thread is rather silly.



  • @BazaarOfBaghdad said:

    So you're suggesting that printing a mega-Tormod's Crypt with 2 use counters before saccing (instead of the current one-use version) rather than Containment Priest/Rest in Peace in order to heighten game state choices would be more fun/interactive? I mean, I grasp that idea of interactive choices, and to some extent I can agree, but that ship has rather sailed, hasn't it, and was intuited by the larger argument anyway (what to do about it now)? Priest/RIP are already in print, and the proper forum to complain is elsewhere really, not here.

    This gets at the heart of it. If you accept my argument (which I think is a totally convincing argument, once you get past the gut reactions and straw-men) you might well conclude that Containment Priest was a mistake and more interactive hate (with other upsides to compensate and thereby make it more disruptive) would be preferable.

    That ship has indeed sailed, but Dredge is far from the last narrow strategy we are going to face in this format. My ultimate argument is all about the original post (part of why I am so scornful of nitpicking that has no connection to the ultimate point under discussion). I think when we look to design new cards in the future, we should try to design more decision-intensive disruption rather than less decision-intensive disruption.



  • I've been thinking about for a few days now and I think I can sum up my problems with current meta shifts this way -
    I'd prefer a meta be shaped out of people building new archetypes around cards that win or work well together within in the confines of their own deck. Right now we're seeing the meta shaped by cards that are designed to tear down other decks. I understand that a prison deck IS an archetype and is well deserving of its place. I'm not suggesting we get rid of it or never print cards that support it.

    But lets face it - almost all the new cards that people are excited about are playable because they interfere with another strategy. We've gotten a ton of new, vintage-viable cards over the past few sets and the bulk of them are, "you can't do that" static effects. Now suddenly we're swimming a diverse meta (which is good) but that diversity includes multiple kinds of lockdown or prison strategies (which imho is bad). I think a healthy meta has a place for a solid lock down style deck or two. If prison control cannot even be played, its not healthy. But when prison control decks start to take over the game becomes very unfun to play.

    I'm not suggesting we're at a critical mass yet. But the way they are firing off new 'gotcha' cards seems to have no end in sight. It *feels *like we're rushing headlong into a different kind of metagame altogether. Whether that train stops in time or not has yet to be seen.



  • @Archae said:

    I may not be completely following everything said here, but can someone clarify a few things for me?

    1. Is the anti-hatebear sentiment (or as it is perceived) that the deck is too good? If so, by what metric? By its 'tier', by its marque wins, something else?
      As far as I can tell, hatebears is necessarily not a tier 1 strategy since it responds to the dominant decks, unless the complaint is that there is an effect on a bear that counters all possible strategies in Vintage and that the hatebear decks can defeat all of those strategies in some stock list. If that's not the case, which I strongly suspect, then the critique or issue seems more to do with the metagame of vintage.
      What I see as the claimed issue is that hatebears do double duty by disrupting and simultaneously furthering the decks own gameplan. And the argument would then be that Lodestone Golem was guilty of the same thing, if I'm steelmanning here. However, my response would be that Lodestone does triple duty actually, by disrupting, advancing, and preventing. We are then back to the idea that shops (with LSG) is/was tier 1, and hatebears are not a valid comparison I would think.

    dunno if im going to be accurate on this but:

    1:no one thinks hate bears is actively too good. except maybe aj tho since he claims to beat it he probably doesnt think that either. the quality of individual hate bears has surpassed a level that can be called reasonable if and only if when played they invalidate/worsen 16+ cards in an opponents deck.
    the difference between bears and lode stone is that lodestone was "artifact" "5/3" "4 mana" "creature" which means it died to artifact hate your were playing anyways, or sweepers you were playing anyways, or counterspells you were playing anyways.
    a bear is "human" "2/2" "2 mana" "creature" "white"(usually) and almost always cast via cavern of souls. this means that it dies to sweepers and 2/turn are resolving because they decreased mana cost. none of the cards people normally play for a reasonable meta can be applied to beat hatebears which in turn requires hatebear specific sideboarding that doesnt get used in any other matchup.
    when you sideboard ancient grudge for shops theres also a chance to bring it in vs a big blue deck, or a null rod deck, or w/e. when you sideboard against bears your sideboard went from having 10 cards for multiple matchups and 5 cards for dredge and became 6 cards for multiple matchups 5 cards for dredge 4 cards for bears. this effectively puts bears on the same stage as dredge for required sideboard slots or you just lose.

    additionally they can't print anti bear cards because ... i actually dont know why but they wont.

    1. Are people okay with a deck being too good, and what would that even mean? Are people okay with some decks having completely lopsided matchups?
      I understand what @ajfirecracker is getting at with his dislike or targeted, continuous hate. My impression is that people are willing to adapt to such hate (a la Grafdigger's Cage, say), but not if said hate is on a human. I don't quite understand the difference if it's not what I explored above. Even then, the room for 'permissable' hate is so narrow. I've seen compaints if that hate is on a land, on a creature, on an artifact (even on enchantment because they're 'harder' to remove). If that's your position (that hatebears are oppressive in their hate and you're not coming at it from the @ajfirecracker side of things), what is okay hate to print?

    people seem to be ok with mentor being perceived as too good. tho im not.
    ok hate to print : brutal supression, tormods crypt, mindbreak trap, perish <- you can play through all of these cards.
    not ok hate to print: blood moon, RIP, Containment priest, cavern of souls (depending on who you ask) <- these cards end the game on the spot if you dont have an answer.

    1. Is the pro-hatebear sentiment that having such a deck can punish decks and opens up design space in the format?
      This seems to be a defensible position to me, since a varied metagame is more desirable to me. Do others object to that statement?
      I do think that hatebears should be more varied among subtypes, but that is just my personal opinion, since it both makes deck construction more interesting and makes more sense flavorwise in lots of cases.

    not sure design space is being opened so much as shifted. shifting design space is not the same as adding design space. tinker opens design space. blightsteel colossus reduces it.

    @Khahan said:

    I'd prefer a meta be shaped out of people building new archetypes around cards that win or work well together within in the confines of their own deck. Right now we're seeing the meta shaped by cards that are designed to tear down other decks. I understand that a prison deck IS an archetype and is well deserving of its place. I'm not suggesting we get rid of it or never print cards that support it.
    I'm not suggesting we're at a critical mass yet. But the way they are firing off new 'gotcha' cards seems to have no end in sight. It *feels *like we're rushing headlong into a different kind of metagame altogether. Whether that train stops in time or not has yet to be seen.

    ^ i agree with this



  • @ajfirecracker said:

    That ship has indeed sailed, but Dredge is far from the last narrow strategy we are going to face in this format. My ultimate argument is all about the original post (part of why I am so scornful of nitpicking that has no connection to the ultimate point under discussion). I think when we look to design new cards in the future, we should try to design more decision-intensive disruption rather than less decision-intensive disruption.

    Static effects often contain a certain delightful simplicity/elegance in wording that in its absence such interactive cards as two-use Crypt (or whatever you would need to acquire as worthy a power level as Dredge threats) would often be a sheer nightmare to parse. I cringe. It would be very hard to approximate the power of a static effect with non-static choices given limited space in the text box.



  • @BazaarOfBaghdad said:

    @ajfirecracker said:

    That ship has indeed sailed, but Dredge is far from the last narrow strategy we are going to face in this format. My ultimate argument is all about the original post (part of why I am so scornful of nitpicking that has no connection to the ultimate point under discussion). I think when we look to design new cards in the future, we should try to design more decision-intensive disruption rather than less decision-intensive disruption.

    Static effects often contain a certain delightful simplicity/elegance in wording that in its absence such interactive cards as two-use Crypt (or whatever you would need to acquire as worthy a power level as Dredge threats) would often be a sheer nightmare to parse. I cringe. It would be very hard to approximate the power of a static effect with non-static choices given limited space in the text box.

    2 use crypt
    cmc 0 artifact
    enters the battlefield with 2 depletion counters
    when an effect an opponent controls puts 4 or more cards into his/her graveyard from anywhere you may remove a counter from 2 use crypt to exile that players graveyard.

    hows that @BazaarOfBaghdad ?



  • Cardname
    0
    Artifact
    When Cardname enters the battlefield, if you cast it from your hand, put a token into play that's a copy of cardname.
    T, sacrifice: Exile target player's graveyard

    But I do agree that ship has basically sailed. I don't think you can design raw graveyard hate that displaces Grafdigger's Cage without breaking the format (as in, I don't think double crypt actually beats out Cage in almost any deck)

    Edit:
    Cardname
    0
    Artifact
    When ETB exile graveyard
    T, sacrifice: exile graveyard

    is probably as clean as it can get



  • @Brass-Man Doesn't it warm your heart to see all this recent common ground and agreement in this thread!?



  • @snowydude: Current metagame -storm +more combat +more 2-for-1s = net win for the format. Probably better if turn 2 Tendrils Storm could still be a bit player, but to be honest it's no big loss to remove that particular element of sillines.

    @ajfirecracker: appreciate your recent posts but I am still not convinced. Of all your points in strategic diversity, this bit exemplifies why I'm having problems:

    @snowydude continued: really have a problem with this:

    "Tinker increases strategic diversity. Blightsteel Colossus reduces it"

    Tinker represents everything that used to hold Vintage back. There is nothing strategically diverse about the way Tinker used to be deployed; a pile of acceleration and card draw and stack control and token bounce spell into a near-invincible endgame.

    Literally it has taken a combination of efficient disruptive creatures ("hatebears") and situational countermagic to usurp that single paradigm and actually allow various flavours of tempo, hard control, hard combo and tempo-slanted midrange (with many caring about the combat phase and life totals) to start doing well. And yes, that includes Tinker, used in a dedicated fashion in Steel City vault (for instance); a usage that does, finally, increase strategic diversity.

    We still have a ways to go; we need e.g. midrange with more X-for-1s (X > 1) than Gush and Mentor. Bring on more hatebears!



  • That was someone else's argument, not mine



  • @ajfirecracker holy shit you're right! Sorry!



  • @ribby said:

    @snowydude: Current metagame -storm +more combat +more 2-for-1s = net win for the format. Probably better if turn 2 Tendrils Storm could still be a bit player, but to be honest it's no big loss to remove that particular element of sillines.

    them be fightin words.
    not that anyone actually cares but i would stop playing vintage if storm/yawg will/shops all became unplayable and true shops decks are already on a downtrend.

    also about tinker. first i was using it as an example of expanding design space not specificly tinker but cards that enable you to play things that are otherwise unplayable. IE cost 5+ mana. the card tinker allows players to include in their decks high cost artifacts that are not remotely castable in vintage.

    the card blightsteel makes any decision about which of those cards to include moot as the best option is blightsteel. next best option is steel wind who sees fringe play as a backup target when blightsteel gets stuck in your hand. no one even bothers to consider cards like leviathan, battleball, or trike when they can get blightsteel. why would they?

    the point is that the stronger the card you can get the less design space you end up with. no one is tinkering for phyrexian processor or disc anymore because newer cards are simply so far off the chart on the power level by comparison that not playing them is outright wrong.

    question if you ban blightsteel belcher and vault from vintage what are you going to tinker for? is it going to end the game on the spot like these 3? if its not a "hate bear" esc card no it will not. which means that these cards are limiting space. if instead of any of these the best card you could tinker for is flame tongue kavu would anyone be playing tinker? maybe but not very likely

    related note i didnt play vintage before 2015 so i dont actually know what people used to tinker for.


 

WAF/WHF