@Loukayza I'm in Pittsburgh and might be up for that. Shoot me a message if you want to coordinate!
Posts made by Archae
RE: 7/22/17 Team Serious Open at the NEW POP! Shop - Sandusky, OH
RE: MTGO Outside Assistance
I think this is an important thread, even for those who don't stream and never has/will. There certainly are differences in paper and online magic, but that's not what we're talking about in this thread (if I understand the views correctly). Similarly, the enforceability of a rule is not what's at stake here. Rather, this topic should (in my opinion) focus on a discussion about ethical implications of streaming. To be upfront, I am undecided on this matter, though I find myself leaning on the side of it not being unethical - note that this is different from my saying that it is ethical. I do see both sides of the issue, and encourage those who only see it one way to attempt to find a framework that allows them to see the other view as well.
To begin, we need to separate rulings and potential enforcement from ethics. This will quickly get knotty, because people will reasonably point to the idea that something is not unethical if it is not against the stated rules: if it is allowed, it is not wrong to do. Those who rally against this idea are thinking about the way the rule should be, not at it currently is. This sense of how things should be will differ depending on ethical framework. The sense that 'everyone is doing it, and you could too' does not address and underlying ethical issue at stake for these people. So ask yourself, do I think something is right or wrong because the rules do or do not permit it?
Second, we need to disentangle consequentialism from virtue. Would your feelings about finding out an opponent was streaming change if you won or lost? Or would you feel slighted (ethically) either way? If the former, we need to unpack the advantages and disadvantages of streaming to measure the expected utils on both sides. In this case, the question will become one of which is on average better overall for people streaming and playing against streamers. However, in the later case, we need to acknowledge that the question of whether someone streams is a question of honor, as Islandswamp put it. If that is the case, the real why someone is streaming* will be of crucial importance. Ask yourself if it would matter that an opponent is streaming to incur tactical benefits or to bring more exposure to the format. There are those that would argue that streaming will incur those tactical benefits implicitly and unintentionally, so that is an important point to keep in mind.
Last, let's talk about realsits and logistics. There are benefits and disadvantages to streaming, but that is a more consequentialist consideration. Here, I want to talk more about the notion of 'If it's not enforceable, why even talk about it or try to regulate it?' The answer to this question: community. While that argument may render discussions moot in other contexts, the vintage community is an important one, and the hallmark of our format outside of the technicalities of what vintage is. I believe strongly that we should discuss this issue so that we try to approach (ideally) a consensus or (at least) mutual understanding of the issues that are at play here. So try to understand where people are coming from when they express their opinions, and try to think about your own underlying assumptions when giving your own views. Whether something is regulated or even if it can be, we can adopt our own practice surrounding this issue.
I hope we have some good conversations here! Also, if you have questions about the ethical terms used, feel free to ask, as I was trying to keep this somewhat concise.
- Note: In all of the above, I am using steaming to mean broadcasting in real time that allows for strategic input from others, unless otherwise clarified.
RE: Player Skill & Deck Quality
[snipped segment about defining 'powerful'.]
I figured that would be the case; I simply wanted to allow for the possibility that you were using some specific heuristic. I'm with you on everything here.
No, I think there is actually a different explanation (and you've conflated cause for effect - the homogenization is a byproduct of de-emphasis of the restricted list, not a separate factor), but I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores of what has brought upon this change at this time..
I agree that homogenization is a by-product, not a cause. I was bringing up the idea in deference to your mentioning it, not trying to say that it was a potential cause. I see that my writing was not entirely clear. Still, I'd love to hear this explanation of yours (not necessarily all the whys and wherefores). Obviously, you owe me nothing and it's entirely your prerogative, as I get a sense of hesitation from you and there may be something deeper is going on within this topic.
However, we are straying pretty far from the topic of the thread, so maybe this is best left to another means of communication.
RE: Player Skill & Deck Quality
@Soly said in Player Skill & Deck Quality:
Overall, the cards have gotten much more powerful.
You can probably find individual cases where that is true (such as Dryad -> Pyromancer -> Mentor), but as a general matter, I'm skeptical of that claim. It seems to me that the overall or average power level of cards in Vintage has rarely been lower.
Consider the simple fact that Vintage has never been defined less by the restricted list. The top decks in the era you reference were oriented around restricted cards. Time Vault. Tinker. Yawg Will. Cards like Gifts Ungiven and Tezzeret derived their power from how they interacted with restricted cards. How often do those cards see play today? There was a time when cards like Tinker and Yawg Will were easily in the like 50-60% of Top 8 decks (this is not an exaggeration).
But I'm not even talking about "bombs." Restricted mana accelerants and tutors have probably never seen less play. There has probably never been a time since 2003 when Lotus Petal, Mana Crypt, and Mana Vault were less played. And have cards like Mystical Tutor, Vampiric Tutor, and even Demonic Tutor ever had less work in this format? These cards saw more work in the 1990s than they do today. They are often omitted even when players run the proper colors. I'm not even sure that players who started playing Vintage in the last few years can even appreciate how absurd Merchant Scroll was. It's barely used at all.
There are probably fewer restricted cards per Top 8 than at any time in the last 15 years. And that's not because of lazy B&R list management. We've had four restrictions (Dig, Cruise, Chalice, Golem) in two years after a period of almost no restrictions in nearly five. And they've unrestricted cards that used to be insane, like Thirst and Gifts.
As a byproduct of fewer restricted cards being used, we have more homogeneous decks. That means there are, by definition, less "bombs" being thrown around.
While I agree with a lot of what you say here, there are some points that deserve more attention. How are you defining 'powerful' cards, or are you taking a definition from Soly?
The idea that fewer traditionally powerful cards are seeing play does not necessarily mean that cards have not gotten more powerful, but could also point to a paradigm shift in what powerful cards are. There are certainly other factors in play, such as the homogenization of decks as you point to. Still, the evidence you cite that some tutors and mana accelerants see less play may undermine your point/skepticism, since it may be evidence of a diminishment in power level of these traditionally powerful cards.
Similarly, the fact that there has been a slew of recent restrictions (more than in the past five years, as you point out) and that once-powerful cards have been unrestricted and may no longer 'be insane' again implies that cards today may be more powerful than your skepticism admits.
In short, your post seems to say one thing while lots of evidence points in the opposite direction.
RE: [Aether Revamped] Paradox Engine
I like the idea of the card, and it can certainly lead to some ridiculous plays. This, with two tops and more than 1 artifact mana, gives infinite mana. I think the cards that benefit most from this card are not storm/PO decks, but rather Turbo Tezz or even Slaver. Getting multiple activations with Welder is going to win the game, and such a deck is more controlling than PO decks. I assume people are going to brew with it and find it lacking in storm/PO and shops, but find some success in slower Turbo Tezz or Slaver decks, since this card accelerates positioning from controlling to comboing off in those decks. So it may be a 1- or 2-of in those decks, but I'm not seeing it as far and away great anywhere else (that's already established. I do hope this spawns something new).
RE: [AER] Scrap Trawler
While someone more clever and experienced with Shops is likely to come up with better, the first thing I think of is recurring any artifact in your deck with Metalwork Colossus. So my thought is to go in the opposite direction (even more prison based) and create a stronger lock by keeping tangle wire set at 4 with smokestack in play, for example.
Also, the value of cards like Spine of Ish-Shah goes up in that case, as do other silver bullets, so my deckbuilding would be steered toward the new prison lists featuring Inventor's Fair.
RE: On Workshops/Prison/Obrien's Current Dominance and What Might Be Done About It
Another potential solution is to make an alternate casting/activation ability, a la forecast and evoke. For permanents, I was thinking along the lines of: '[cost]: Exile this card from your hand, then put it onto the battlefield if it was exiled in this way.'
It shakes up the format by dodging both sphere effects and countermagic. Of course, something similar could be templated for non-permanent cards.
RE: TKS Moon
To the OP:
I understand your thrust to be more proactive with your threats. One key issue I see is a reliance on Blood Moon as a threat on top of your others. I see a softness to the recent crop of Paradoxical Outcome decks that are heavily reliant on moxen, to the point of being able to ignore Bloon Moon entirely. Your other threats (except potentially TKS) also do not address decks like this.
In my opinion, moxen are a key way for decks to dig out under a moon effect, and your only response is EE, I think. Chalice could mitigate that as well, as could Null Rod. At that point, you'd want Tombs probably to power out chalice and rod, and would be playing a different deck entirely.
Just something to think about.
It isn't about being toxic, it's about being right. But I forget that now everyone has to be 'nice' and 'friendly' on the internet, even if that means lacking truth.
This seems to set up a false dichotomy between truth and kindness; I do not think those two are mutually exclusive.
RE: [KLD] Paradoxical Outcome
Correct msg. The post before mine spoke of glimmervoid and or other ANY color lands to help the manabase, and to provide other answers to Rod/Stony (Grudge was brought up for example). Reservoir provides life gain to offset the Ping Lands and provides another route to victory in POutcome lists. Sorry for the confusion.
Gotcha. Sorry for not seeing what you were responding to.