@joshuabrooks said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:
@Hrishi said in Notes on the State of Vintage, Jan 2017:
but I am personally having less fun in Vintage than I ever have before.
I always find it useful to know why someone feels like this. We've all heard it (or said it) from time to time over years- I like to know why. As I mentioned earlier, Vintage is an emotional format that is played for a lot of different reasons, and when having these discussions I think it valid to know a person's reasons for dissatisfaction (preferably without it devolving into Workshops vs Gush). When someone says they don't like Vintage, let us know why!!
Comments I've heard:
Meta moves too quick now.
Elite and casual gap has widened.
VSL put a spotlight (correctly or incorrectly) on Vintage's format issues.
Mentor feels like a control deck, but plays like a combo deck= format fatigue.
Shops is unfun/too popular
My pet deck isn't viable anymore
DCI making the wrong decisions.
Not enough deck variety
This is really one of my points, right?
As I wrote in this article:
*Most Vintage players, myself included, have strong ideas about what should – and should not – be placed on the Restricted List. Some players have preferences that veer dramatically from the current list, and others would prefer just a few tweaks. Some want a bunch of cards restricted, and others would like to see a bunch unrestricted.
But considering all of those various preferences in aggregate, there is no way to manage Banned & Restricted List policy in a way that leaves everyone happy. For everyone person who wants Oath of Druids restricted, there is probably someone that would like Windfall unrestricted. To take a concrete example, with almost 300 people voting, 20% of people in a December poll felt that restricting Lodestone Golem was a mistake, with more than 20% unsure. That means that only 59% of respondents were confident that restricting Golem was the right move, and that was eight months after the fact.*
I should have included this in the article, but consider another Poll someone started last month: http://themanadrain.com/topic/928/january-9-2017-banned-and-restricted-announcement-poll
The question was, basically, do you think the DCI should have made a B&R list change?
60% of the respondents thought not, and were glad the DCI didn't change anything.
Only 40% of the voters felt that something should have been changed. Yet, it is almost impossible to imagine what consensus among that player segment would look like on what they believe should be changed, if anything.
I'm pretty happy with the current B&R list, but there is at least 1-2 cards I would unrestrict, if I were the DCI. But that puts me in very different company than JimTosetti, who a few posts up, said he would restrict 5 cards.
Not only is there a lack of consensus that anything should happen (in fact, there is a clear consensus against anything), but there is absolutely no way to parse the various preference sets. When people say they want to see X, Y, and Z restricted, does that mean they also would not like to see L, M, N or P restricted? Or is it simply they don't care enough to express a preference, or that they are more focused on X, Y, or Z?
Preference sets with respect to the B&R list are extremely complex. There is the inherent complexity of ranking preferences, like ranked voting. But there is also the inherent interrelationship of the elements. A single change can change the perception of other cards, like Eric Miller, saying we could unrestrict Trinisphere if we restricted Workshop. A single restriction can change the underlying context under consideration.
I wrote this article to try to illuminate a broader spectrum of perspectives, to illustrate how different forms of engagement with the format (platforms as well as history) generate different experiences and perspectives, and that recognizing that and appreciating and respecting those differences may be able to help bridge some of the divides in this format.