@Smmenen said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:
@ChubbyRain said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:
@Smmenen I'm asking him to provide a statement or support for his opinion. It's easy to do...a simple "We do not restrict cards simply for the sake of change would work." In the absence of such evidence, what we have is an equivalent opinion on what the purpose of the restricted list is. As for getting emotional, trust me I'm not. You just annoy me with your bullshit.
First of all, "getting annoyed" is an emotion. Calling a good faith argument "bullshit" is personal. Just chill.
Fine. Let's get back to the issue.
Second, once again, you can't prove a negative. The DCI doesn't provide non-reasons for it's actions. If the DCI restricts a card, and offers reason R, it doesn't explain why X, Y, or Z aren't reasons (aren't why it acted). Again, that would be absurd. Imagine such an explanation:
Card X is restricted. This card, time and again, outperformed competitors in the metagame, and according to our data, had the highest win percentage over the last 12 months. As a result, we have decided to restrict this card to open up the metagame. Note that we did not restrict this card because the metagame was stale or because people thought it was unfun.
When has the DCI ever provided rejected grounds for it's actions? You would never see a sentence like the last one in my faux B&R announcement.
Take a look at your request. Using your own words, you asked wappla to produce this statement: "We do not restrict cards simply for the sake of change," or something logically equivalent. Again, if no DCI explanation ever would provide non-reasons (reasons that were not considered for their action), then how in the heck is wappla supposed to produce such evidence?
The DCI literally just gave such an explanation with regards to the 1v1 Commander format.
"Before diving into the next set of bans, I’d like to restate that our primary goal for the Magic Online Commander 1v1 format is to make the most fun experience possible. Color balance alone isn’t a reason to alter a format, but lack of variety in play experience is. Our intention is to try and trim excess power from clearly dominant decks to open up space for a variety of decks to succeed, not to introduce churn by adjusting the ban list."
They explicitly state that they didn't ban an assortment of Blue cards for color balance. Ironically, they also mentioned what I assume to be "action for the sake of change" or "churn", so I concede the point to Wappla that there is evidence for his position. Still, there are many instances in which people from Wizards have provided insight into their B&R process. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for information regarding this. I'm still waiting on your justification for "maximum number of cards possible."
Again, my argument is not based on this - I don't agree that the restricted list should be used for rotations. But he made the claim. Not me.
I think you've lost track of the thread here, man.
Wappla was replying to your post 75, where you said:
"Because stale metagames bore me. They aren't competitive, they aren't interesting, and Vintage will not grow as a format if the metagame is going to remain solved for years at a time."
Wappla responded, a few posts later, by saying: "Sounds like you have unrealistic expectations for how fast a format that encompasses the entire card pool should change. Vintage should change glacially unless they start printing cards as good as moxen and Time Walk again. They literally invented Type 2 to solve this problem. The restricted list is not a tool to rotate the format. That's why Standard exists."
It was only THEN, in post 75, that you replied:
"what evidence do you have that the restricted list is not a tool to "rotate" a format? Is there a statement by someone currently in charge of Wizards or is that merely your opinion?"
So, your comment at the top, that "he made that claim," not you, is misleading at best. He was responding to your claim, which appeared to everyone that you favor the use of the Restriction policy mechanism to disrupt stale metagames.
You reinforced this reading when you you said, in essence, "what evidence do you have that this ISN'T the case?" In other words, the clear implications of your question and line of questioning is that B&R list policy is legitimately deployed to disrupt stale metagames/shake things up/rotate the format.
The fact that you are now denying that is fairly mind blowing.
I clarified my statement right before that, saying I wasn't referring to rate of change. The fact that you are omitting this is also fairly mind blowing. I even quoted it.
I never claimed that restrictions should be made for the intent of "shaking up" a format. Wappla made the claim and I'd like to know his justification for it.
Ah, but you did, as I just demonstrated. If you didn't intend to, you need to reckon with the fact that that's how everyone read your words. Again, you stated:
My argument is that clearly dominant draw engines should not exist for extended periods of time in Vintage.
When a predominant blue draw engine does not dominate the format, your rule, here, is tantamount to setting a timer on any predominant blue draw engine, and restricting it to shake things up. There is no other reasonable reading of that sentence when said draw engine is not dominating the entire format, and you've already made your position clear, in post 53, and you are talking about predominance among draw engines, not the entire format.
Diversity argument. I am of the opinion that Blue should have multiple competitive and strategically different options. This has nothing to do with "shaking up" a diverse metagame in equilibrium. If Gush is not dominant, I don't care if it exists in the metagame for 10+ years. If it is dominant (i.e. clearly superior other options), then I think time should be allowed so the metagame can adjust. If the metagame fails to adjust, then that's when action should be taken. The timer is being set on the metagame, not the draw engine.
@ChubbyRain said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:
@Smmenen Can you please answer this post?
First of all, it's really odd to direct that question to me. In your original post with that question (post 80), you directed that hypothetical to Jeb Springfield. So, I'm unclear why you are directing me to answer it now.
@ChubbyRain said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:
Hypothetical Question: If Shops was significantly weakened to pre-Worldwake levels, would you look at this format and say it was better than when Gifts was restricted? When Gush was restricted (either time)? Fact or Fiction? Thirst for Knowledge?
I really don't understand your question, to be honest. It's confusing in several respects.
First of all, Shops was very strong before pre-Worldwake (as much 20% of Top 8s), so I really don't see that much difference between Shops now and pre-Worldwake, especially with Golem and Chalice restricted.
I am not very knowledgeable of particular metagames in Vintage. Your link is helpful though. It appears that the Mana Drain was at 45% and Shops 20%. This is actually rather close to the previous metagame, in which Shops/Thorn decks and Gush decks tended to be ~33% of finishes each (off the top of my head). My argument is that Shops is a stronger pillar now given its advantage against Gush, which has taken percentage points from Gush as the dominant Blue deck. You have the top 2 decks in both formats equaling two/thirds of the winning field. It's just the decks happen to be much closer in power levels, creating the illusion of a "healthier" metagame.
Second, the metagames with Gifts, Thirst, and Fact restricted were wildly different. I just don't understand what you are asking.
If you are asking, however, if Shops were artificially lowered to a smaller part of the metagame, would I consider this format any worse than those historical metagames just after Gifts, or Thirst or Fact were restricted?
Unreservedly. This metagame is putrid compared to any of those. The metagame immediately after Thirst was restricted was much better than this one. Take a look, if you don't believe. http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/18040-So-Many-Insane-Plays-VintageLegacy-Split-Article.html
Vintage was roughly:
Archetypes as a Percentage of the Top 8 Field (July/August 2009)
G/x Beats: 6.9%
Drain Tendrils: 5.6%
"Rest of the Field": 22.22%
Or, how awesome was the September/October, where the engine breakdown was:
19 Mana Drain decks: 29.68% of the Top 8 Field
10 Mishra’s Workshop decks: 15.62%
7 Dark Ritual decks: 10.93%
9 Bazaar of Baghdad decks: 14.06%
It's a little top heavy on blue decks, but that was a MUCH healthier metagame than we have now.
These results are awesome and I would consider something like this to be ideal, with no single archetype consisting of more than 33% of the field. We aren't disagreeing on whether there is a problem, we are disagree on the solution. I do not believe such a metagame is possible with Gush as a 3-4 of along with the Delve spells.
In my opinion, the current illusion of "balance" is a product of Shops' strength combined with Gush's (used right now to refer to the tempo-oriented draw engine encompassing cantrips and delve spells) dominance over the rest of the format.
That assumes that the metagame is balanced. I don't consider it balanced. So, I'm not sure why you are directing this question to me.
It's not, hence the quotes. I'm glad we are in agreement. I'm curious on your perspective since you are much more knowledgeable about previous iterations of Vintage than I am.
Fair enough though I believe it's clear that Doomsday and the various combo builds of Gush were not significant players in the previous metagame. They were often absent from events and rarely successful.
Not true before Mentor was printed. And with Golem and Chalice restricted, and if Mentor were restricted as well, Dday would have been a very good option again, but only if Gush were unrestricted.
Before Mentor, Delver and Young Pyromancer were much more popular than Doomsday. You had a hybrid version of Gush storm that ran Young Pyromancers though it's not clear if that was the best version of that deck or if it would have been better off without the Storm package. In any case, Doomsday had a rather abysmal matchup against Shops and Eldrazi. Unless you are proposing a restriction to those archetypes, it's incredibly unlikely that it would be able to return as a viable options.
I believe that diversity in Vintage is largely created from Blue decks.
Except that's not true.
While it is true that you can create quite a bit of blue diversity if you want, it is equally possible to create a very diverse Vintage format without diversity within blue decks.
This isn't an opinion. It's a mathmatical fact that you can create diversity without expanding the diversity of blue decks. For example, if Bazaar decks and Dark Ritual decks both climbed to 20 of Top 8s or of the metagame, you would dramatically increase the diversity of the format without having to do anything to blue decks.
I mentioned interactivity, which is also something that must be considered along with diversity. These two qualities were mentioned by the DCI in the Lodestone restriction and it's why a Flash unrestriction is a pipe dream. Turn 1 wins might be acceptable to current Vintage players but they are a huge turn off to newer players, the ones Wizards wants playing in their online events. Restricting Dredge hate pieces (like someone suggested) is also unlikely.
What you essentially set out, in the middle of post 129, is a vision of Vintage that would have to use B&R list policy in a far more aggressive way to sculpt the format. And doing so would be absolutely anathema to many, if not most Vintage players, as it would result in many unnecessary restrictions, simply to execute a vision of diversity that is not actual diverse - but a faux-blue diversity, that washes out Shops, Dredge, and Combo in favor of a much bluer format.
Sounds like a nightmare to me. The alternative is simpler and much better: restrict cards only if they absolutely need to be restricted because they would dominate the format, and unrestrict cards that aren't a threat to dominate the format. That would actually create a more diverse format.
Vintage is now in a nightmare without any obvious escape route, except multiple unrestrictions that can create new options for players, IMO.
The nightmare scenario for me is that the DCI would let the Vintage format stagnate and wither away before making necessary changes. Can you really argue that Dig through Time was dominant before its restriction? That Lodestone was dominant? That Chalice was dominant? I agree with every one of those restrictions, but I can't reasonable say that any of them were dominant.