@brass-man said in Why I don't think Mishra's Workshop should be restricted.:
@joshuabrooks is attendance down? It doesn't seem that way to me, but I don't think we've been tracking that information the same way we've been tracking everything else. I certainly haven't been.
Polls and articles and interviews add to my personal confusion, because it feels more and more that the overlap in the Venn diagram of "Vintage Players" and "TMD users" is steadily shrinking. This alone has left me far more aimless than the metagame has.
I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't saying attendance was down, was stating that no matter how much data we analyze, or how much theorycrafting we do, tournament attendance is the final arbitrator.
The purpose of the original post was pretty simple. There's been a lot of moaning the last few months (years) about the format, this is nothing new. However, once I started to hear the concept of restricting Mishra's Workshop being thrown around very flippantly, it gave me a moment's pause. I wanted to start a thread that would address whether or not we should protect iconic or long-term format cards at the expense of newer cards? I obviously understand that someday Workshop might need to be restricted, but I would hate for it to be a result of a new card like Hangarback or Ballista or because Ravager came back into the spotlight. I personally think iconic cards are important. Others do not. And I think Workshop is a unique case in that restricting it is much different than restricting a Treasure Cruise or Dig (both of which can be found rather easily through manipulation). Shops players don't have that.
I did like your comment about the Venn Diagram, however, and I think it worth a discussion. The way I see it, TMD attracts about seven different kinds of users (note: this hasn't been run by the marketing department ;)
1.) The Pros- People on the VSL, Top Vintage Champs finishers, Top MTGO players, the top 1%.
2.) The Names- Prominent players. People who dominate their local scene, podcasters, writers, etc. People with recognizable names in Magic.
3.) The Regulars- People that consistently play in tournaments, occasionally Top 8. Play lots of matches. Better than average
4.) The Elders- People who have low investment in the game (ex: bought their Lotus 20yrs ago), and still play because they have little invested and still like it. Might play once a year, or once a week, but don't take it too seriously.
5.) The Rogues- People who like to try new decks or their primary focus is enjoyment, not winning.
6.) The Shooting Stars- People that come into the format, power-up quickly (ex: in paper 1-2yrs), play a ton of matches over a few years, do well, and then burn out, quit, or need the funds for something else and sell out.
7.) The Theoreticals- People that do not actively play paper or MTGO (or don't have access), but have vocal opinions, or enjoy the theoretical and discussion side of Magic.
I understand this isn't comprehensive, and I just threw this together on the fly, but I think most people fall into one of those categories. I know I personally float in between a few of them during different life stages.
The issue that TMD faces is that an undesirable spiral can occur if there is too much untested theoretical, which turns off the prominent players, and then this perpetuates its own problem. I personally can't play more than 1-2 times a month right now, so my voice needs to become more diminished (though I felt a defense for a 20yr old card a worthy thread).
I guess my point is: The Pros, the Names, and the Regular's opinions should be weighted more heavily, because they are the ones that will keep Vintage moving forward. Casuals will likely play no matter what (though might drift away). Shooting Stars will come in and out. And Theoreticals, unless they gravitate to a different category, can have a negative effect on the game if they are loud enough. I'm confident there are a TON of people on TMD that have never actually played or played against a current Mentor/Shops deck, and yet have very strong opinions. This is a bad thing.
That said, Magic players inherently have biases (even Pro Players!), and I think that's why so many people feel compelled to push back against the more prominent voices. We all have our ideals of what Magic should be, but I guess at the end of the day, we need to trust Wizard's judgment, as there really isn't any other option. Their lack of transparency and guidelines for decision is what makes it so difficult.
Sorry for the sidebar @Brass-Man , but I think the Venn Diagram is a worthy frustration for you.
(After-comment): There's just no good solution. Restriction adds more variance to the game ("I would have beat him, but he drew his _______") and that's never a good thing. Which is why I'd prefer to nix cards that might just fade away, over iconic stalwarts.