Thoughts on restrictions



  • Wow, this thread is so much Arguing On The Internet that it makes your head spin. I wanted to pipe up and congratulate those who kept a level head while engaging in this discussion (you know who you are!)

    Also, how about some data to go with the Hate Souffle that's being served up here?
    https://www.mtggoldfish.com/metagame/vintage#online

    Looks like Shops is still king of the roost with Ravager Shops being 24%, Mentor being 14%, and Grixis being 13%. Huh, that's odd... no white hatebears in the top three decks according to Goldfish? As we go down further, we get Storm and Grixis Thieves at 5% and... AHA! There we go, Thalia's Hatemongers are down at 3% of the metagame.*

    Truly, Vintage as we know it is broken beyond repair. The sky, indeed, has fallen.

    • = This analysis subject to correction by people with better data than me, i.e. So Many Insane Plays.


  • @smmenen Actual design is messy. It's hit-and-miss. We have a restricted list because of this. We have cards that see no play (in part) because of this. It's really strange to say "Well, you couldn't know 100% for certain that a card would lead to more meaningful non-obvious decisions, so we better not take that into account when designing cards in any way". That an insanely higher bar than any other design principle has to pass.



  • @MaximumCDawg Darnitall! Now I'm going to live the rest of my life knowing I could have chosen Hate_Souffle my name on here, but missed it. Thanks a bunch Max... thanks a bunch.



  • @Topical_Island My deepest condolences for your loss 😞



  • @snowydude said:

    the cards you use to fight mentor pyromancer and eldrazi are all compltely different from the cards you use to fight thalia containment priest and other bears.

    I hear Sulfur Elemental, Dread of Night, etc. etc. are pretty good against both.

    sure verdict is good against multiple decks but how many slots are you going to devote to a 4 mana card that you cant always cast and is dead in every other matchup?

    What? Of course some sideboard cards are dead in other matchups. Are you running dredge hate, for example? How many decks are those slots useful against? However, you're saying that Supreme Verdict is useful against Mentor, YP, Eldrazi, and hatebears. Isn't that the mark of a good sideboard card, making it easier to board against hatebears?

    And you just said:

    the cards you use to fight mentor pyromancer and eldrazi are all compltely different from the cards you use to fight thalia containment priest and other bears.

    I don't follow your line of thinking if you're saying both of these things simultaneously. Am I taking you out of context?



  • I want to go on record saying that @ajfirecracker fundamentally understood a problem in hate and interaction design. Thank you for putting up with this messy thread, i just really cant be bothered.



  • @Archae said:

    @snowydude said:

    the cards you use to fight mentor pyromancer and eldrazi are all compltely different from the cards you use to fight thalia containment priest and other bears.

    I hear Sulfur Elemental, Dread of Night, etc. etc. are pretty good against both.

    well you heard wrong.

    sure verdict is good against multiple decks but how many slots are you going to devote to a 4 mana card that you cant always cast and is dead in every other matchup?

    What? Of course some sideboard cards are dead in other matchups. Are you running dredge hate, for example? How many decks are those slots useful against? However, you're saying that Supreme Verdict is useful against Mentor, YP, Eldrazi, and hatebears. Isn't that the mark of a good sideboard card, making it easier to board against hatebears?

    well as i i generally play storm i sideboard 0 cards for dredge. partially because they are all dead in every matchup and partially because wishboard.

    And you just said:

    the cards you use to fight mentor pyromancer and eldrazi are all compltely different from the cards you use to fight thalia containment priest and other bears.

    I don't follow your line of thinking if you're saying both of these things simultaneously. Am I taking you out of context?

    ahh i spoke poorly there. i intended that spot removal which is strong vs bear style decks is quite poor against token strategies and thoughtsieze on a 4/4. that was poor communication on my part.


  • TMD Supporter

    @ajfirecracker said:

    @smmenen Actual design is messy. It's hit-and-miss. We have a restricted list because of this. We have cards that see no play (in part) because of this. It's really strange to say "Well, you couldn't know 100% for certain that a card would lead to more meaningful non-obvious decisions, so we better not take that into account when designing cards in any way". That an insanely higher bar than any other design principle has to pass.

    Although I disagree with your position and many of your ideas, it is difficult to avoid nitpicking when you make claims of such staggering breadth. The last sentence above is a case in point. It's impossible to know whether you actually mean something less hyperbolic and the error is in formulation or whether your ideas are just badly conceived. I usually take sloppy formulation as a sign of sloppy thinking.

    Case in point: I can think of a dozen design principles (top down design, for example) that do not require such information at all. That's because most design principles don't require knowledge of specific Vintage outcomes. I already pointed out that Wizards, by their own admission, do not test cards for Vintage play. At all.

    The problem with your counterpoint here isn't that Wizards can't know with 100% certainty whether one card design or an alternative, both aiming at the same target, would both preserve the same degree of meaningful choice and also contribute to the same match win %. The problem is that there is no way of knowing with even 50% certainty, or perhaps any confidence at all.

    The problem of the multiplicity of formats underscores, most severely, the problem with your ideas for design. A card might actually maximize meaningful choice in one format, but be destructive to it in another format. What if the card maximizes meaningful choice in Vintage, but is utterly destructive of it in Modern or Standard? How would you resolve that problem if you were a designer? How would you, as a designer, even assign weights to that, let alone to match win %ages across formats?

    This is, of course, aside form the theoretical impossibility of what you ask (the most advanced magic theory suggests that win%ages and choices are correlated and explain each other). The practicalities are worse.

    Your design ideas aren't operationalizable.



  • See self-refutation, above


  • TMD Supporter

    I don't see anything logically responsive to those points. Please be specific.


 

WAF/WHF