Thoughts on restrictions
-
@ajfirecracker said:
@Smmenen said:
I think this may be the crux of the disagreement. Your position assumes that it's possible to create "stronger" hate that is also yet somehow more interactive (meaning, allows for more meaningful choice). But my definition of 'stronger" is that such hate, by definition, takes away more choice. Therefore, I think it's an oxymoron to say that we can create stronger hate that expands choices for the opponent. I don't think that's possible. (Yes, I take as an assumption that the removal of choices correlates to and explains win rates. )
I think this in particular flatly contradicts the Dredge example, which you brought up yourself, that "stronger" hate (than no hate at all) often vastly increases the decisions to be made in the matchup
Yeah, but it often does the opposite. That's my point. There is no way of knowing whether it would increase or decrease. It's fundamentally unknowable a priori. Any heuristic would be deeply flawed (and subject to all of the biases covered in Daniel Kahneman's research.)
-
It's fundamentally unknowable a priori. Any heuristic would be deeply flawed
This is nihilistic. If we cannot look at two cards and ever conclude that one more strongly supports meaningful non-obvious choice, you can't use it as a design principle
-
More strenuous (effortful, forceful, adamant) disruption is frequently compatible with more meaningful non-obvious decisions for both players, as your example of Dredge shows.
The sentence makes no sense in context if you interpret it the other way.
-
@ajfirecracker said:
It's fundamentally unknowable a priori. Any heuristic would be deeply flawed
This is nihilistic.
No, it's not nihilistic, it's realistic. The concept of nihlism carries some pejorative connotation here that is unwarranted. Just because we can't know some things doesn't mean we are nihilistic. It just means that there are limits to our understanding. That doesn't mean the end of inquiry or a feeling of hopelessness or meaninglessness. After all, this notion - that there are limits to understanding - is the basis of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. Just because we can't simultaneously know the momentum and location of a particle isn't nihilism. It's just a fact of life.
If that's nihilism, then any time anyone said "that's a question we can't answer," then someone could accuse them of being a nihilist. that's not warranted or fair.
If we cannot look at two cards and ever conclude that one more strongly supports meaningful non-obvious choice, you can't use it as a design principle
Thus my argument. I presented a two prong argument (numbered above). First prong attacks your suggestion at a theoretical basis. Second as a practical basis. But even if I believed it was theoretically possible, the number of cards in the card pool and the dynamic nature of the metagame make it practically more difficult. Thus, even if I'm wrong on the theoretical basis, certainly the second argument has greatest force in a format like Vintage. That is, even if such a design principle could exist and be operationalized, it would likely only be applicable to tiny formats where small card pools can actually more precisely shape outcomes.
-
@Smmenen said:
Think about it: in order to implement such a design approach effectively, you'd have to actually know exactly how the games would play out in the real world metagame. Specifically, you'd have to be able to predict/know 1) the match win % of the hate card you are considering on the target deck, 2) the match win % of the alternative hate card, and 3) you'd have to know the degree of meaningful choice that each card effects on the opponent. That's fundamentally unknowable at the level of specificity required to operate as a design principle.
isnt that exactly what the future future league does for RnD?
@ajfirecracker said:
More strenuous (effortful, forceful, adamant) disruption is frequently compatible with more meaningful non-obvious decisions for both players, as your example of Dredge shows.
The sentence makes no sense in context if you interpret it the other way.
to be fair that sentence doesnt make any sense to me to begin with
-
@snowydude said:
@Smmenen said:
Think about it: in order to implement such a design approach effectively, you'd have to actually know exactly how the games would play out in the real world metagame. Specifically, you'd have to be able to predict/know 1) the match win % of the hate card you are considering on the target deck, 2) the match win % of the alternative hate card, and 3) you'd have to know the degree of meaningful choice that each card effects on the opponent. That's fundamentally unknowable at the level of specificity required to operate as a design principle.
isnt that exactly what the future future league does for RnD?
Yes, but not for Vintage! They specifically said they do not test for Vintage (per my point about scaling to different formats). And the FFL has admitted, on many occasions, that they miss more than they get right. It's not possible to know with the degree of confidence needed here, whether a card or it's alternate satisfies the four conditions needed to operationalize this design principle (assuming you had a method for quantifying that information as well).
-
@Smmenen so we've established theoretical possibility. and have evidence of small scaled versions having non 0 amounts of success. cant we just multiply by unreasonable amounts of man hours and money to have a future past league that accomplishes for vintage what future future does for standard?
im not recommending that we should or that its even remotely viable in a cost/profit kind of way i just mean if wizards was committed to vintage the same way it was for standard this is something they are capable of doing.
-
@Smmenen said:
Yes, I take as an assumption that the removal of choices correlates to and explains win rates.
Upon reflection, this may be the most deeply troubling sentiment in the thread.
If fun is defined as meaningful non-obvious choice, the only conclusion from your assumption is that the deck with the highest win-rate is the most fun. Anything an opponent does to lower your win-rate must not be fun. A 50-50 matchup between two control players must not be as fun as using Dredge to stomp someone's Standard deck.
This is clearly absurd, so one of the premises must be wrong.
I don't think it's wrong at all to operationalize fun as meaningful non-obvious choice, so your question-begging assumption must be wrong.
-
@snowydude said:
@Smmenen so we've established theoretical possibility.
No - I think we are talking about apples and oranges. The FFL's job isn't really to predict, precisely, future metagames - even in small formats. I think they realize that's impossible. Rather, it's purpose is to project the broad contours of formats (very roughly), and to identify and weed out potentially problematic combos and cards that are overly powerful. Yet, even here, they've failed badly on a number of occasions. They can only project a bit of what actually happens.
and have evidence of small scaled versions having non 0 amounts of success. cant we just multiply by unreasonable amounts of man hours and money to have a future past league that accomplishes for vintage what future future does for standard?
It's not actually possible. This gets to the science of complex systems. System dynamics can't be reduced to the elements of the system - there are unintended consequences that can't be predicted. It's called "emergence." The emergent properties of complex systems can't be known in advance.
-
@ajfirecracker said:
@Smmenen said:
Yes, I take as an assumption that the removal of choices correlates to and explains win rates.
Upon reflection, this may be the most deeply troubling sentiment in the thread.
If fun is defined as meaningful non-obvious choice, the only conclusion from your assumption is that the deck with the highest win-rate is the most fun. Anything an opponent does to lower your win-rate must not be fun. A 50-50 matchup between two control players must not be as fun as using Dredge to stomp someone's Standard deck.
This is clearly absurd, so one of the premises must be wrong.
I don't think it's wrong at all to operationalize fun as meaningful non-obvious choice, so your question-begging assumption must be wrong.
I think most tournament competitors (Spikes) would agree that the deck with the highest win rate is the most fun in any given tournament
Yes, I assume that cards that remove choices from the opponent increase the chances of winning, and therefore explain win rates. This goes back to something I wrote friday: I said that your theory ultimately seeks to develop "weaker" hate cards, because leaving more options necessary reduces win rates.
But this has to do with the theory of Magic which I am applying (and why I said on Friday that your ideas are contrary to the fundamental notions of how the game works).
I argue (in my Gush book) that Magic as a game where both players 1) seek to achieve strategic objectives that satisfy conditions set out in the rules of magic for winning games, and that 2) most decks also seek to thwart the opponent from achieving those objectives.
There are a finite number of routes to achieve strategic objectives. All "hate" cards are tactics that seek to do (2). Necessarily, the better hate cards either a) take away more options, and/or b) make it more difficult for them to be addressed (overcome, removed, etc.). That's the core of how I define hate cards. Obviously, built into that definition are considerations of efficacy, efficiency, etc. as well.
I believe that when people experience "fun" they are expressing some notion of agency, which I've defined as "meaningful choice." Clearly, one of the meaningful choices is deck choice. Formats with no deck choice are not fun. Another expression, as I said before, is in-game decision making. Players want their in game decisions to matter.
It's possible that various expressions of meaningful choice are in tension with each other. I've articulated this more detailed on the old TMD boards in other threads. That is, increasing one form of meaningful choice can come at the expense (although not in perfect ratios) of another.
Ok, now to bring it home. Yes, I assume that removal of options for an opponent correlates to and explains win rates. That's because the theory of Magic I just presented says that most players will seek to thwart achievement of strategic objectives. if you deny your opponent any chance to victory (as Zvi says in Who's the Beatdown 2?), they cannot win.
Or, as Brian Demars has said, the player with the most options generally wins.
But the conclusion you've drawn - that therefore the strongest deck will necessarily be the most fun - doesn't follow. that's because you've forgotten something important. Remember that i said that meaningful choice occurs on at least 5 different levels. Your conclusion only follows if you make the only one that matters to be "in game decision making." As i said, deck selection - say, choosing a surprise metagame deck that dominates a single tournament - is also an expression of meaningful choice, and therefore an element of fun.
We've already established that a hate card that is so effective that it closes off all in-game options for the opponent will, by definition, win the game, but also, unless it can be contested preemptively or at the point of attack, eliminate meaningful choice for the opponent (at least, after the game begins). A hypothetical 0 mana card that, say, exiles your opponent's library and hand if, say, they play dredge cards, would be an example of this. True, that means that no players will have meaningful choice once It resolves, but that doesn't eliminate their meaningful choices prior to that moment.
If I find or select upon a really crazy metagame deck that thoroughly dominates a tournament, it's possible that I may have actually had no meaningful choices in the entire tournament except deck selection and design, and yet still had a blast.
Thus, the importance of the time element (the reason your conclusion doesn't follow) and the myopic focus on in-game decision making. Part of the reason that Magic is such a great game is because it's dynamic, not just within games, but across tournaments. In fact, that's probably it's most important feature. If the presence of a really powerful hate card emerges, then it's incumbent upon players targeted by it to make design adjustments (or play a different deck), rather than sit passively and take a whooping.
Thus, the interactive/over time dimension to this. The reason hate is not actually a problem is because, per the earlier digression, it channels players into other strategic paths or imposes a cost. That's it's function.
In any case, this entire discussion falls under the (sub) header of the theoretical (im)possibility of designing cards that both preserve meaningful choice (relative to alternatives) and yet do not compromise win percentages. I don't believe that's possible. But,I can be wrong on this point and still win the overall argument, since I've shown the impossibility (under header 2 of my prior post) of actually operationalizing it (the epistemological problem). To recap: even if it's theoretically possible to create a card that can achieve the same win % contribution and preserve more choice, I don't think it can be operationalized at the design level, because you would need information that cannot be obtained a priori (specifically, you would need to know 1) the contributions to win % of both cards, and 2) quantifiable meaningful choices effected by both cards. Not possible.
-
Okay, you're very smart and you win the conversation. Good job.
-
@ajfirecracker Saying you can add answer cards until you dilute your deck to oblivion isn't really accurate. You add 4 bolts or plows, maybe a massacre...toxic deluge. Tutor it up and sweep the board. Play EE@2. Pernicious deed? Decay? There are lots of answers. You don't have to remove EVERY creature, just the one that stops your storm plan. To suggest you shouldn't have to add answers for hate is saying you want to run unimpeded unless the disruption is on the stack. You seem to think "intelligent/thoughtful disruption" is on the stack - duress, FoW, etc. GWR can't play counterspells or discard. They have permanents, usually in the form of creatures. Not everyone wants to be a blue mage fighting a blue mirror. You should have to add answers to your deck. If you have 49 cards as an auto-include, you have 11 slots for other stuff and 5ish answer cards (if you even need that many). If you are complaining you'd rather use those 5 slots for more engine or bombs and not have to deal with permanents that can stop you, well....that's just selfish i guess. To think you could make any deck and not need to change it in any way unless it's fighting the blue mirror is foolish.
-
That doesn't respond to any of my arguments at all. Go re-read what I said.
-
You said "@BazaarOfBaghdad that's not a stable metagame option or on net fun for both players. If a lot of matchups devolve (in actual gameplay) into counting hate cards and counting answers to hate cards and whoever has the most wins that's a problem. It's a problem even if the "broken" deck is winning most of the time. If storm has a 90% win rate but the 90% are all blowouts and the 10% are blowouts the other way, that's actually terrible gameplay for both players 100% of the time.* I would much rather take my broken deck and subject it to better but more intelligent/decision-intensive forms of disruption*. If I had the 90% Storm deck I would be happy to instead have the 60% Storm deck with only 20% blow-out matches.
What do you consider "intelligent/decision intensive" disruption? Knowing when to play a hate piece, how to bait a counter, and how to dodge removal IS decision intensive. Just because it's not a counter/drawspell war doesn't make it simple.
Shortly after that, you said:
"The pro-hatebears people have spent the thread saying that hatebears aren't overpowered, yet now they're so powerful that I have to play a completely different deck or drastically alter my gameplan.
The fact that hatebears are beatable and that you can readily adapt to them is part of what makes them bad design.
Again, as between a 90% win-rate deck with virtually 100% blowouts and a 60% win rate with 20% blow outs I would prefer the one with fewer blow outs and more meaningful, non-obvious decisions. You guys are still attacking straw men rather than anything that people are actually advocating in this thread.
To be perfectly blunt: my linear strategy is beating your hatebears. I have no reason to change. That doesn't mean the actual games are fun."
How is the hate so bad that you need to "drastically alter your deck", yet a few sentences later say "my linear deck is beating your hatebears: I have no reason to change"???
-
Counters and discard can involve quite a bit of skill, so can hatebears. What I am objecting to is that new hate that is printed defaults to "you don't get to do your thing" rather than "it's harder to do your thing, to the point that you might lose the match, but you can still try" or "I get a big benefit when you do your thing"
It's not even necessarily more disruptive (stop changing the definition of disruption, @smmenen, either it takes into account mana cost and consistency or it doesn't) to have the more powerful effect of "you can't do your thing" because usually those cards are easier to remove (and resume doing whatever the thing you wanted was in the first place)
This dynamic - "you don't get to play at all" versus "oh yes I do, and therefore I win easily" is not that interesting in most cases, and is certainly less interesting than "I think I can stop the thing you're doing" versus "Let's see. Oh, darn, you got me this time!"
According to the pro-hatebears people, hatebears are simultaneously not that good (so stop whining, aj) and so good that I have to change my strategy (so just change it and stop whining, aj)
In actual matches, I have a very strong record against hatebears with a pretty linear deck
-
@ajfirecracker Then why did you say:
"The pro-hatebears people have spent the thread saying that hatebears aren't overpowered, yet now they're so powerful that I have to play a completely different deck or drastically alter my gameplan."???
You say the pro hatebears people say they aren't overpowered, but they cause you to make drastic changes. in the same breath you say you are beating hatebears, they aren't very good, and you don't need to change your linear deck. Which is it?
-
@Thewhitedragon69 read the post above
The contradiction is by the hatebears people, not me. I was pointing out that their stance is contradictory, not saying a thing and immediately contradicting myself.
-
@ajfirecracker Okay....so what you're saying is you don't like spells that stop you from advancing your gameplan...but you don't mind casting your stuff into landstills and counters so you never actually resolve anything but THINK you are possibly going to win?
-
@Thewhitedragon69 I want my decisions in the actual game to have some probability of influencing who wins and to not be painfully obvious in as large a proportion of games as possible
-
Is that why you play dredge?
