[Discussion] The Purpose of Legacy

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Is this OUR format?

This quote got me thinking, specifically because I started writing a long article back in December about this very question, because I think that the many disagreements people have over the Banned list, what is or isn't "healthy", and the format in general stem from a difference in views on the nature and purpose of Legacy, or of any format or Banned List, for that matter.

So, cutting away most of the article, the gist was:

I think it might help to think of the format not so much as something owned by one or another party, but as a contract between two parties.

We(the players, party of the first part) agree to play and develop decks in this format, play in tournaments in the format, and most importantly, buy and trade for the cards necessary to perform afore-mentioned obligation.

WotC(party of the second part) agree to provide a relatively stable format to the best of their ability, meeting the agreed-upon standards first set out at creation of the format*.

Think of it this way; I have no right to demand that Tippy's Tacos sell me a hamburger, simply because I want a hamburger. But if they promise to sell me a taco and give me a hot dog instead, I do have a right to be angry with their failure to meet their promise.

If WotC had failed to act on the Hulk-Flash problem, they would have been breaking their promises regarding the intended nature and purpose of the Legacy format. *As Mr. Forsythe clearly lays out in The Beginning, Legacy was intended as a deckbuilder's paradise; a field that was open enough for a large variety of decks to be viable. This doesn't mean a lack of development, contrary to the snarky assumptions of the format's critics, it simply means that the field is level enough that there is no immediately obvious "right call" as to what deck you should be playing.

This fulfills the desires of both parties; the players have access to decks and cards of which they're fond that might be obsolete or no longer legal in other formats. Not every deck and card might be viable, but a large number of them, compared to other formats.

Wizards gains from this directly; the more cards that are played in constructed formats, the more secure are the investments of players, both those who all ready own cards for the format, and those who are buying cards for more recent formats. The more secure the players' investments are, the more willing they'll be to continue buying new products. This is the function of the Eternal formats, from the perspective of WotC, and this is why Legacy is more important for that purpose than Vintage is. Because Legacy has more deck diversity, it provides security to more cards, and thus, to more players.

The Banned List directly relates to deck diversity; by eliminating the strongest strategies, you open room for new, weaker strategies to exist. This is why I tend to err on the side of banning rather than unbanning; in the past I've advocated Reset and (misc. Goblins piece) being banned, not necessarily because they're dominating the format overtly, but because they're invalidating more strategies than they're allowing. This is also why I feel LED needs to be watched closely, and would rather it join the list sooner than later.

[Machinus]

There's no purpose, and no contract. Legacy exists solely to provide value and longevity to the Magic brand, since it depends on the secondary market. If they don't think it's worth the effort they can do whatever they like with it.

This is a minimal expense to WotC, but they gain something intangible that indirectly affects their actual business. WotC has given Legacy some support in this capacity, through GPTs and B/R action.

[FoolofaTook]

From the relatively limited perspective of a returning player who has just started to understand the Legacy metagame I don't see many, if any, problems in the current card set available.

Flash-Hulk was just a clearly broken combo that ambushed the format over a short period of time. 2 cards that can win at instant speed off of the draw before the opponent has played is just broken.

Goblins is beatable so many different ways that despite its speed and power it can't be seen as broken. People who want to play a slow developing theme that counters a few things and then grabs control will lose to Goblins every time. So what? That's the price you pay for wanting to control the metagame, you lose to the most prevalent aggro deck.

Combo is nasty as all get out and it can also be put in an almost hopeless position turn 1 if it runs into the wrong deck.

All of the decks I face on a regular basis have basically the same game plan: grab the game early and hold on to it until they kill the opponent no more than 5 to 7 turns in. That's what Legacy is, a short fierce fight to the finish with very little in the way of momentum or tempo shifts after the first 3 turns.

Obviously there are a lot of people here who have seen Legacy develop from it's type 1.5 roots and have a better idea than I do as to what phases it went through on the way to becoming a Sumo wrestling match.

And I agree that the purpose of Legacy is just to allow people to play with as many of their cards as possible, with the emphasis on "play", even if the play is coming down to a very short interval.

BTW, the format that Legacy most closely resembles to me is the pre-tournament 1993 format in which the only restrictions were the number of each card you owned. By that I mean the same rock-paper-scissors element that was in play then, heavily favoring the first player to play, is in play now. Force of Will is as powerful as it is primarily because missing the first opportunity to counter frequently means you will never get another.

[4eak]

The social contract theory seems very relevant (it is essential to any capitalist notion, including trade). The player base and WotC do form that symbiotic social relationship, and I think you have the right idea as to the requirements for MTG's survival. Asking, "what is the purpose of Legacy?" is truly spot on.

The creation of the Legacy format would seem to be a social contract, even if only indirect and implicit. As to the meaning of Legacy and implications of its definiton, I think there is a good deal to "flesh-out" so to speak.

When I think of Legacy as a deckbuilder's format, I assume we mean 'deckbuilder' in a sense larger than deck "tuning", but actually the ability to introduce new deck concepts, strategies, and cards altogether on a fairly regular basis. Legacy, in my mind, is a glimmer of hope for a constantly evolving and flourishing metagame, especially with such a large cardpool.

While most gamers want an evolving metagame, many eternal players are hesitant to put their card collections' values in jeopardy due to constant changes in demand for those cards. The problem is that it is difficult for cards to retain value in a healthy evolving metagame (a deckbuilder's format).

Evolving Metagames and Stable Card Usage are diametrically opposed ideas. Evolving metagames would require that different cards are constantly being used and introduced into the format, and established/powerful cards constantly being banned/restricted, making previous popular and strong decks less popular and much weaker. Thus, card usage and the stability of card value would be called into question.

Beware of slippery slopes and the possible arbitrary boundaries and definitions that may be created, such as the differences between evolving and stagnant metagames, or B/R-able cards vs. healthy cards, and so on and so forth. These boundaries, of course, are drawn by WotC--let us hope they have good reasons and a solid definition of Legacy from which to make such distinctions. Of course, it may be up to us, as part of this social contract, to help draw those boundaries with WotC.

Getting back to what I was saying:

The ironic aspect of Legacy as a deckbuilder's dream that also seeks to maintain card value is that one idea pushes for changing card usage and demand (and consequently changing card values) while the other pushes for static and stable card usage, which is the basis for a static and unchanging demand for those cards, i.e. unchanging usage of cards forms a stagnant metagame allowing for long-term retention of card value.

The creation of an evolving metagame would require constant and frequent adjustments to the B/R list to force changes in the metagame beyond its normal state of flux. The fundamental turn of legacy must be slowed down in order for a deckbuilder's paradise to exist. This is annoying to many eternal players in several ways:

Some people don't like change, especially constant change.

1.) Card value's would not be entirely stable, especially if good ones kept going on and off the B/R list.
2.) People could not easily metagame (although, this is technically the point of an evolving metagame/deckbuilder's paradise)

However, I think there are several benefits to change that many are unwilling to objectively consider.

Change is good in my opinion. If Legacy were to fulfill the purpose of a "deckbuilder's format", then the B/R list would need to be constantly updated to eliminate such things as "tier 1" decks and Archetypes, slowing the format down essentially, to make room for other decks. The card-pool boundaries would need to be evolving inorder for the metagame to continue evolving in a meaningful sense.

An evolving metagame allows for new decks to be constantly introduced. While there remains some sense of chaos in the evolving metagame, such a change to the card pools allowed in Legacy would create a significantly larger portion of "viable" cards.

Eternal players are stuck between retaining static card value and demand or evolving metagames with constantly changing card demand and values. WotC and the Legacy player base certainly have a difficult question to answer. WotC should naturally be pushing for evolving metagames so that demand for new cards could exist in eternal formats, but they must do so very, very carefully. They have to make players believe that the cards they buy have value, and to some extent, the MTG player base is made to believe their cards are valuable in some long term sense, thus players will continue to buy cards. Unfortunately, that card value concern of the player base creates incentive for WotC to allow more stagnant eternal metagames. After all, what is Type 2 other than a forced evolving card pool? We don't want eternal formats to evolve in that sense necessarily, and so we go back to the drawing board, as we are forced to define those slippery slope issues, such as "where will we allow the fundamental turn to exist?" and "how quickly evolving is too quickly evolving?" and "at what point is a card too prevalent?"...

It would seem obvious that we would define such things in a social contract, but of course, we are mere mortals.

peace,
4eak

[Tacosnape]

You people make my head hurt.

The purpose of Legacy is for us to have fun.

[Jak]

You people make my head hurt.

The purpose of Legacy is for us to have fun.

QFMFT.

Seriously, it is a game. Wizards tries to make money off us by giving us a format for the older cards that no one would play. It is no more complex than that.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

QFMFT.

Seriously, it is a game. Wizards tries to make money off us by giving us a format for the older cards that no one would play. It is no more complex than that.

Then why are there three formats with older cards? And what's the purpose of the banned list?

It actually is more complex than that.


Change is good in my opinion. If Legacy were to fulfill the purpose of a "deckbuilder's format", then the B/R list would need to be constantly updated to eliminate such things as "tier 1" decks and Archetypes, slowing the format down essentially, to make room for other decks. The card-pool boundaries would need to be evolving inorder for the metagame to continue evolving in a meaningful sense.

Quite. The meta-game has to be constantly kept of its toes in order to preserve an open field. This requires a good deal more activity from the DCI than we've seen. Every 3 months would ideally see some change, whether it's a banning or unbanning.

This shifts some of the card value from the very top and distributes it to a wider selection. If there's no clear answer to the question "What should I play if I want to win?", then the cards that support the deck that would be that answer lose some value, but many more lower tier decks have cards that gain value.

Such a meta-game would both increase the practical card pool and the perceived card pool. That is, in an open meta-game, more deck-choices are justifiable, and more decks that aren't truly justifiable will be played with the excuse that "it's an open meta-game so anything can compete".

[4eak]

The meta-game has to be constantly kept of its toes in order to preserve an open field.

I think this mentality requires further justification. After all, why would you want an evolving metagame and an open field at all? I think our assumptions about the purpose of Legacy are still not entirely revealed, we need to show why we would want such a metagame at all. So, I ask you, why would you want an evolving metagame? The answer to this question should provide the foundational premises for the issue at hand.

The question that eternal MTG players must answer: Do you have magic cards to collect them for value, or to have them to play the game? Most would think that both of these ideas can co-exist, and to some extent they can, as there must be some demand for the current competitive cards; however, I remain doubtful that both can be pursued to the Nth degree without meeting some contradictory aims.

On one hand, we want to say that a competitve (gaming) eternal format creates value for older cards (and insofar as an eternal format game exists, we'll have some degree of demand and value created for those older cards), but on the on the hand, we have to realize that a truly competitive eternal format, one that is reaching for absolute challenge and strategy, requires an evolving metagame which creates an evolving demand for cards, and thus evolving card values.

At some point, competitive gaming, which involves fluid, evolving metagames, will eliminate card-value retention. Are Legacy players willing to accept this? Are we more concerned with challenge and true gaming or the value of our card collections? Are you here to play a game, or are you here to make a monetary investment? As WotC continues to specialize and define the purpose of Legacy (with us as part of that social contract), we are more able to see the increasing disparity of the aims of eternal magic players and collectors.

peace,
4eak

[AnwarA101]

Players from all over the world have been calling for such a separation for years, claiming that a format cannot hope to have its own identity if the legality of its card pool is a slave to another (very different) format. In the past, we felt that the format would never be popular enough to necessitate burdeing players with another list of banned cards to memorize, so we were content to essentially manage both Vintage and “Type 1.5” with one list. But with the impending rotation of the Extended format next year, we felt the need to make sure there was a reasonable format available where players could use their old cards (everything from dual lands to Ice Age cards to Rebels) that was not just a toned-down version of Vintage. We tried to strike the fine balance between accessibility and, well, balance of play.


The main purpose of creating Legacy seems to be creating a format where older cards would be legal. They concede that they are legal in Vintage, but they wanted a more reasonable format where these cards could be played. They seem to realize that having a large portion of Magic cards not being playable in anything but Vintage would diminish interest in those cards. There was no reason to do this especially when they could create Legacy with very little cost and perhaps a huge upside if people became interested in this new format.

The only thing that Forsyth implies about Legacy is that it should be more reasonable than Vintage. On that I think he can claim to have a success. The format has a variety of strategies even with very powerful cards. Wizards didn't want to make this an overly weak format. This was Forsyth's last section about Legacy.


Various other powerful cards: Fact or Fiction, Survival of the Fittest, Regrowth, and Goblin Lackey are all extraordinarily powerful cards that we decided to make legal. We want to keep the format healthy and balanced without making it overly weak and without having a banned list that is five pages long. These cards (as well as a few others) will be on our radar as this new format finds its legs. Hopefully they will add excitement without upsetting the proverbial apple cart.

[Lego]

There's no purpose, and no contract.

But then...


Legacy exists solely to provide value and longevity to the Magic brand, since it depends on the secondary market.

Seems like a purpose to me.

[4eak]

Certainly there is a difference between what leaders of WotC consciously understand (and state) and the invisible hand of capitalism that guides them to make such decisions. As for their stated purposes and understanding of the market, WotC certainly has fulfilled their end of the bargain (which is to be expected for appearances sake), but this does not negate the implicit movement of the WotC to continually attempt to introduce and define 'the' competitive eternal format. They keep making formats and adjusting them to try and match the demand more accurately.

The two extreme ends of this demand spectrum, between an evolving metagame based on evolving card pools vs. eternal "fine-tuning" metagames based on static card pools that retain their value are found in:

Type 2=highest evolving metagame in terms of card pool changes (albeit, they are too scared to print powerful cards). Most cards retain value in T2 only insofar as they remain in T2. Cards that were amazing in T2 are often subpar in other formats, and once those cards rotate out, they lose their value.

Type 1=the majority of T1's metagame is fine-tuned over and over, not with absolute revolutions of the metagame and cardpools that are 'viable', but in small, small increments. For all intensive purposes, card values are static or rising (due to lower and lower supply of specific cards). Power 9 will always be power 9, this is an investment, but it also the base of a more static metagame and cardpool.

Obviously, Legacy was built to have a bit of both and is currently closer to the T1 side of the spectrum than the T2 side. Legacy, whether consciously stated or not by WotC or players, is a product of an invisible hand of the market--this product is the birthchild of two opposing demands: eternal players want truly evolving metagames, and yet they want to use older cards for value-retention.

Reaching evolving and flourishing metagames is obviously much easier in an eternal format with such a large cardpool. But, without constantly changing B/R lists, the format will eventually dead-end into the same "fine-tuning" metagame as T1...just without the power. People don't want B/R lists (or any card-pool boundaries) changed because it affects the value of their cards and current decks.

Ironically, Legacy players cannot have their cake and eat it too, they are forced to choose between true evolving metagames or static card values. While WotC may not admit this is the case (or even be consciously aware of the matter), the demand of the market, the ebb and flow, the tide of wills must move them towards creating such formats. WotC have obviously not responded perfectly to the market, in part because the market asks for something that probably possible. Yet, in the pursuit of 'the' eternal format, this distinction comes forth, and again we are forced to answer: to what degree do we have cards to play a game and to what degree do we collect them for their "value".

Defining 'Legacy' does seem like a good question to me...it may not instantly change how we or WotC perceive what is going on, but the question remains valid and extremely relevant to the pursuit that we call "MTG". I suppose we are attempting to define "legacy" so that we know what we like about it, and so that we know what we don't like about it. By being able to know each of these, we are better able to demand exactly what we want. The sooner we understand the possible contradiction of the two ends of the spectrum, the more likely we are to demand something that is actually possible for WotC to supply. Stating those demands more coherantly may very well be productive, even if it only aids or accelerates the invisible hand of the market.




peace,
4eak

[mikekelley]

You people make my head hurt.

The purpose of Legacy is for us to have fun.

Absolutely. To have fun with old cards, without giving my first born for power. That's all i want, seriously.

[Machinus]

Seems like a purpose to me.

There is no agreement between any two parties, and no one is obligated to do anything. There is no purpose for the format the way it is.

There is a purpose for the general idea of older formats, though.

As long as higher management feels that it is adding value to the brand, they will continue to commit minimal resources to maintain them.

[Jak]

Then why are there three formats with older cards? And what's the purpose of the banned list?

It actually is more complex than that.


There are three formats so people will buy cards of a variety. Wizards wants people to play magic, so creating different formats is good. People will play Legacy to play with their burn deck or play with their power for Vintage. It also makes people buy more cards because goblins is not widely used in Vintage. It may be a little more complexed, but Wizards makes money off us for having fun.

Edit- The purpose of the banned list is to keep people playing. No one would play if one deck was viable. More formats equals more cash for Wizardsl.

[Pale Moon FTW]

@4eak: I think you're exagerating (sp?) the importance of the card prices by setting it equal with playing. There are way more players than collectors and most players don't really care about the value of their cards that much. Most would agree that they play Magic to have fun, not to earn money.

[revenge_inc]

...for us to have fun. :smile:




To add something relevant to the discussion I agree with most of what SpatulaOfTheAges said except this...


...and this is why Legacy is more important for that purpose than Vintage is. Because Legacy has more deck diversity, it provides security to more cards, and thus, to more players.

...which confuses me because I don't get the reasoning behind it.

[4eak]

@4eak: I think you're exagerating (sp?) the importance of the card prices by setting it equal with playing. There are way more players than collectors and most players don't really care about the value of their cards that much. Most would agree that they play Magic to have fun, not to earn money.

If you are correct, then why I don't I see full proxy Legacy tournaments more often? If cards value really doesn't mean anything to the majority of Legacy players, and pure gaming is all that mattered, then we would certainly see pure proxy tournaments.

I feel I may need to elaborate (not exaggerate) even further on card "value". I don't mean to always speak of card value strictly in the sense where people are "buying low and selling high" like stock brokers. But, if people value their cards, then they probably, at the very least, value them in some financial sense as well. This is just a fact of life and economics.

Now, I would agree that more people have magic cards to play the game than those that have magic cards strictly to collect and make money, but this does not detract from the distinction I've made concerning the choice eternal players are faced with...And, be honest, most players "value" their cards, at least to some degree, in a monetary sense. The problem is that a dynamic and evolving metagame may require them to sacrifice the value of those cards in order to be gaming in a more significant sense.

Additionally, of the Legacy players I've talked to, most of them would agree that they both "play" for the sake of gaming, but also collect for the sake of the value of the cards (at some level, they will admit this). As I said earlier, if people really are here to game, and the cards don't actually mean anything to them, then they should have no problem playing against an opponent with a proxy deck. What most don't realize is that the spectrum is zero sum-- the closer to an evolving metagame we come, the less static card values will be, and the closer to static card values we come, the more stagnant the metagame.


peace,
4eak

[Cabal-kun]

It sounds like you're saying that for an evolving metagame, cards will be forced out by newer cards, with the end result being the older cards loosing value. Just because the metagame evolves doesn't mean older cards will loose value. Will StP or FoW ever decrease in value just because new cards are introduced?

And even if a card is printed that hoses another card, it will take on a predator and prey population characteristic. Card B is printed, now hosing Card A. Card A's value decreases while B's increases. People stop playing A, and after some time, B is no longer played because its prey is gone, and it's monetary value drops. Card A begins to be played in the absence of B, and it's value rises. B starts to be played, and so on. Now add into this mix Cards C through λ.

Just because an evolving metagame is wanted doesn't mean that the value of cards decreases. Some old staples were will remain staples because they're good against new decks too. Like StP and FoW.

[MattH]

If you are correct, then why I don't I see full proxy Legacy tournaments more often? If cards value really doesn't mean anything to the majority of Legacy players, and pure gaming is all that mattered, then we would certainly see pure proxy tournaments.
Don't be ridiculous.

First off, you don't see Legacy proxy tournaments because Legacy isn't THAT hard to get into - any given deck is maybe as much as twice the cost of an extended deck (while Extended season is going on), and there are other ways to save money, which have been amply documented elsewhere. Secondly, the overall player PERCEPTION (which is in some ways more important than the reality) is that Legacy is easy to get into. Partly this is fed by the players themselves - I know that I would be absolutely willing to loan out duals and stuff (with collateral, sure, but not exacting a real price) in order to have more and stronger competition. I despise ever feeling like I won because the other guy didn't own the cards he needed to beat me.

Furthermore, no one said players attach NO value to their cards, only that they don't attach AS MUCH as you seem to think.

Secondly, there are a host of benefits associated with sanctioned tournaments, which proxy events can never be. Starting with the ability to jockey for rating (and about once a year, that means something in the GPs), and continuing on to more smoothly-run tournaments (DCI reporter is a great help) and on-staff, certified judging, sanctioning is just a plain good thing, and valuable in its own right.

I think you are making this way more complicated than it has to be. A lot of players simply like to play with their toys - they form irrational attachments to cards, and want to use those cards, and Legacy provides an outlet for that, without the staggering barrier to entry that Vintage requires.

I think that one reason Wizards made the Legacy format was that they saw Vintage nearing some upper limits on things (price barrier to entry, card availability, sheer power level) and predicted that there would be a significant chunk of players who would want a different long-term format.

Maybe we should ask Wizards for a formal statement of what they think Legacy 'should be', in the way that they've stated that type one should be "the place where you can play all your cards." They've explicitly said that one reason they hesitate to ban Yawgmoth's Will is that "it would be like banning the card from Magic." I would be interested to hear similar statements reflecting how they felt about Legacy.

[4eak]

It sounds like you're saying that for an evolving metagame, cards will be forced out by newer cards, with the end result being the older cards loosing value. Just because the metagame evolves doesn't mean older cards will loose value. Will StP or FoW ever decrease in value just because new cards are introduced?

Eh, I think you didn't understand what I said.

Evolving metagames would be a result of evolving B/R lists and cardpool boundaries. Cards at the top of the list would be forced out not by newer cards, but the the B/R list. And, yes, to some extent, the result would be a lower demand for those cards, and thus a lower value. So, if cards such as StP and FoW were B/R'd according to a system devised for maintaining an evolving metagame, then those cards would lose value.


Just because an evolving metagame is wanted doesn't mean that the value of cards decreases. Some old staples were will remain staples because they're good against new decks too. Like StP and FoW.

I suppose you don't understand what I mean by "evolving metagame". The point of an evolving metagame is that there is no permanent staple. And, I'm not saying a perfectly evolving metagame can exist in MTG, but true gamers would certainly strive for such, and adjustments could certainly be made to bring MTG's metagames closer to evolving than stagnant.


First off, you don't see Legacy proxy tournaments because Legacy isn't THAT hard to get into.....Secondly, the overall player PERCEPTION (which is in some ways more important than the reality) is that Legacy is easy to get into

I will certainly agree that it is much easier to afford the Legacy base cardpool than something like Vintage. But, you maybe you missed the point of what I said. Here is the simple rule:

As price increases, the demand will decrease. The higher the value of cards, the fewer number of people there will be able and willing to pay for them.

So, as Legacy cards do have a price, the market requires that there are certainly people who would be willing to play Legacy that either can't afford or refuse to pay for those cards. And, you need to think larger picture, including the international level (not just Europe and Japan), when considering this price barrier. There are certainly many places where people could and would play Legacy if they could afford the cards.

The price should not be a barrier to play. Gaming has nothing to do with how much money you were willing or able to spend, it has everything to do with fairness and equal opportunity to win. Thus, in the interest of absolute gaming, people would certainly create and attend proxy Legacy tournaments if all they really cared about was competition.

Certainly, people can draw an arbitrary line saying, "well, hmmphh, if people don't want to pay, then they don't deserve to play," but this sort of thinking is obviously not in line with true gaming at all, and it smacks of the type of thinking that involves "valuing" cards more than valuing competitive gaming.

At some point, current players decide that the value of their cards outweighs the value of gaming against opponents unable and unwilling to buy those cards. Now, you may be willing to lend a few cards out, but there are still plenty of people that can't afford those cards, or are not in a position to even borrow those cards. I want to play against anyone who has a brain to play, not against anyone who has the money to play. It would be 'ridiculous' to say that card value isn't a barrier to maximizing the competitive gaming environment.


Furthermore, no one said players attach NO value to their cards, only that they don't attach AS MUCH as you seem to think.

I've already tried to explain that I don't think people are directly trying to be stockbrokers with their cards, but obviously how the way people "value" their cards acts as a barrier to true competitive gaming and true evolving metagames.


Secondly, there are a host of benefits associated with sanctioned tournaments, which proxy events can never be. Starting with the ability to jockey for rating (and about once a year, that means something in the GPs), and continuing on to more smoothly-run tournaments (DCI reporter is a great help) and on-staff, certified judging, sanctioning is just a plain good thing, and valuable in its own right.

Ah, "sanctioned tournaments"...

If people are truly concerned with gaming, and not card value or any other superfluous issues, then they won't care about 'sanctioned' tourneys or not. Look at Vintage. Those people play games, regardless of rating. It is obvious that, in this respect, they play magic to play magic, not for rating.

I have nothing against ratings. If people want to pursue a rating, then go for it--but ratings are not synonymous with true gaming (although one can construe a system in which ratings are the "win condition").

More importantly, there is no reason to think that we have to use the DCI's rating system at all. If people are seeking ratings, then make a rating system! There are many gaming communities that simply create their own rating systems. The DCI is not the end all be all controller of such a thing if the player base chooses to create a different social contract (among themselves), creating their own rating system.

It is the current Legacy community, those able and willing to pay X (magic pun), that chooses to force a card-value barrier on the format.


A lot of players simply like to play with their toys - they form irrational attachments to cards, and want to use those cards, and Legacy provides an outlet for that, without the staggering barrier to entry that Vintage requires.

People do irrationally overvalue their cards, and yet they also want to play a game. But, they don't seek true gaming, just some degree of 'gaming' without eliminating their irrational overvaluing of their cards.

You go on to say (I'll translate): Legacy players are closer on the spectrum to desiring true gaming than valuing their cards than would allow them to play in vintage. So, yes, Legacy players are willing to eliminate "some" card-value barriers to game play, just to spruce up the metagame and allow more players to play. But, this does not mean that Legacy players still don't create at least some card-value barriers to game-play.

I ask again: to what degree do we have cards to play a game and to what degree do we collect them for their "value". Clearly, the current Legacy community attempts to answer this question (maybe not consciously or explicity--think "inivisible hand")...but, for those who thought Legacy was to be a "deckbuilder's paradise", a true evolving metagame, you may find yourself disappointed.

Now, I'm not trying to say what we should or shouldn't do regarding the metagame or how we value our cards--what I am saying is this: we need to call it like it is, and we shouldn't be arrogant enough to think we are truly gaming if we aren't. More importantly, the definition of Legacy, is in part, up to the players in this social contract. And, if Legacy players want to move more towards absolute gaming and evolving metagames, then it is up to us to choose it.

If you want absolute competitive gaming and an evolving metagame (or as close to these as we can come), then there are sacrifices to make, including, as MattH put it, the "irrational" attachment to the value of our cards.


peace,
4eak

[Nightmare]

I'll just come out and say it.

Card value has nothing to do with the health of the metagame.

[4eak]

I'll just come out and say it.

Card value has nothing to do with the health of the metagame.

I don't mind statements, but I like to see arguments to support them. You have not addressed what I have said, which does imply that card value has something to do with the health of the metagame (even if indirectly), nor have you provided evidence for your claim.

Summarizing my argument:

Evolving metagames require evolving card usage.
Evolving card usage is based on evolving card pool boundaries (B/R lists, etc.)
Evolving card pool boundaries limit the usage and demand for cards.
Limiting demand for cards lowers card prices.

People don't want to lose card value, thus, they will have a difficulty in playing in formats with evolving metagames.

Proxies eliminate that problem of course...such as playing online. You just need a community that can build a proper tournament and gaming structure, in part, it rests upon our shoulders to help meet the demand of an evolving metagame.

Of course, if you don't wish to actually support your argument or claims, and just flat disagree, that is your choice. I do hope that if you reply, it will take into account what I've said, using true counterarguments, instead of just merely throwing away what has been written so far.

If you are interested in a good read: http://www.hypercynic.com/?p=8
That might help some...

Otherwise, I suppose we can agree to disagree.

peace,
4eak

[Nightmare]

Evolving metagames require evolving card usage.
Evolving card usage is based on evolving card pool boundaries (B/R lists, etc.)
Evolving card pool boundaries limit the usage and demand for cards.
Limiting demand for cards lowers card prices.

People don't want to lose card value, thus, they will have a difficulty in playing in formats with evolving metagames.

Proxies eliminate that problem of course...such as playing online. You just need a community that can build a proper tournament and gaming structure, in part, it rests upon our shoulders to help meet the demand of an evolving metagame.I intended to refute each point as it was presented, but I reconsidered. Your points in themselves are not incorrect, however your underlying assumptions are. You feel that in order for a metagame to be evolving, there needs to be a significant upheaval to the status quo. That's false. You also assume that there is a significant portion of the potential Legacy player base that stays away from the format based on some cost barrier associated with the format. From my experience, this is also false.

Those two false assumptions lead you to believe that in order to maximize the player commitment to Legacy, the value of top-tier cards must be artificially lowered by an outside influence, be it proxies or bannings, and that bannings should be used as price control as much as power-level control.

The more likely scenario is, you ban a bunch of cards with "high" price tags, like Force of Will, and the cards that are suddenly tier 1 spike in value (see: Flash). Not only that, but one of the most potent cards for keeping degeneracy in check is now gone, and you lose more players to "stupid combo decks" ruining the format than you ever would gain from a lower entry cost.

[4eak]

You feel that in order for a metagame to be evolving, there needs to be a significant upheaval to the status quo. That's false.

"Evolving" would indicate such upheaval. Show me how this is false. Of course, feel free to define a "healthy" metagame for me please.


You also assume that there is a significant portion of the potential Legacy player base that stays away from the format based on some cost barrier associated with the format. From my experience, this is also false.

No, I'm applying Economics 101 and drawing a fair conclusion. It isn't like I made this "supply/demand/price" issue up. Show me where I'm wrong beyond your "experience".


Those two false assumptions lead you to believe that in order to maximize the player commitment to Legacy, the value of top-tier cards must be artificially lowered by an outside influence, be it proxies or bannings, and that bannings should be used as price control as much as power-level control.


Show me where I said this please. From what I can tell, I was showing how Legacy was defined and how we can redefine it if we so choose.



peace,
4eak

[Nightmare]

"Evolving" would indicate such upheaval. Show me how this is false. Of course, feel free to define a "healthy" metagame for me please. Evolution doesn't need to be drastic. We don't need a sixth finger to prove we've changed. Take for example, the last six months of Legacy (excluding the month of Flash), where we saw the metagame evolve from a Goblins/Threshold metagame, to one more focused around the better combo decks in Legacy. This wasn't due to banning the best cards available, but rather due to the introduction of new, strong contenders. You dismissed this as inconsequential here:

Cards at the top of the list would be forced out not by newer cards, but the the B/R list.
Note that TES is one of the least expensive decks in the format to build, which further deconstructs your theory that price and strength are proportional.

As for a healthy metagame, we've never had one as healthy as exists today. There are a plethora of viable decks, and none stand heads-and-shoulders above the rest as the "best deck." There is a wealth of new development, due in no small part to the release of Future Sight, which makes the graveyard/dredge strategy much more potent. Again, this is not due to B&R changes. If we can all agree Mind over Matter sucks (relatively speaking), and Replenish is decent, then the B&R list change has established 1 new deck (Pandeburst), while the release of a single new set has spawned at least two in the same amount of time (Ichorid and Cephalid Breakfast).


No, I'm applying Economics 101 and drawing a fair conclusion. It isn't like I made this "supply/demand/price" issue up. Show me where I'm wrong beyond your "experience". How much does a Bazaar of Bagdhad cost right now? Mishra's Workshop? Time Vault? Illusionary Mask? Demand dropped off significantly. Supply therefore increased, since people planned to sell. And yet, the price is still high.



Show me where I said this please. From what I can tell, I was showing how Legacy was defined and how we can redefine it if we so choose.
The higher the value of cards, the fewer number of people there will be able and willing to pay for them.Which implies your goal is to lower the value of cards to increase the people willing to pay for them.

[4eak]

Evolution doesn't need to be drastic. We don't need a sixth finger to prove we've changed. Take for example, the last six months of Legacy (excluding the month of Flash), where we saw the metagame evolve from a Goblins/Threshold metagame, to one more focused around the better combo decks in Legacy. This wasn't due to banning the best cards available, but rather due to the introduction of new, strong contenders. You dismissed this as inconsequential here:

Note that TES is one of the least expensive decks in the format to build, which further deconstructs your theory that price and strength are proportional.

As for a healthy metagame, we've never had one as healthy as exists today. There are a plethora of viable decks, and none stand heads-and-shoulders above the rest as the "best deck." There is a wealth of new development, due in no small part to the release of Future Sight, which makes the graveyard/dredge strategy much more potent.

You sound comfortable with the current metagame, but this is not the same thing as knowing what a healthy metagame is...You do not provide arguments regarding what a healthy metagame exactly is in the first place, nor why that definition is correct (albeit, nor did I until I posted that link for you).

I think you still need to support your claims regarding:

a.) What is the meaning and purpose of a metagame, and what exactly is a healthy metagame, and why?
b.) How healthy is the Legacy metagame according to the definition?

Where we disagree is obviously on the definition of a healthy metagame. While I might admit that Legacy's metagame is currently "healthier" than ever before, that does not mean it is healthy, nor does it mean the game or format is anywhere near a healthy metagame (which is the ideal we are pursuing, no?).

I directed you to an article on the subject of gaming which clearly defines metagame for us. It is obvious that you didn't read it. If you want, I can post it for you, otherwise, you can just click on the link and read the article. We need to have a good point of reference from which to make arguments; we have to agree on the definitions to understand each other.

Assuming you read and understood that article (which I felt was too long to post in this thread, so I linked it instead):

The fair and evolving metagame tests skill in every sense of the term, and nothing else. It means that a skilled deck builder is given the opportunity to do more than just "tweaking" and "fine-tuning" of older decks, it means that their skill is used to its maximum, with near infinite possibilities of viable decks. Evolving metagame also would simply have to mean that there are more than 1 or 2 new decks that are "viable" a month, it means that decks are viable completely based on the skill of the builder and the player playing them, requiring a much larger variance in the metagame. Evolving does mean something very drastic, almost chaotic. The point of an evolving metagame is that it eliminates a player's ability to meaningfully metagame (the verb) beyond just the skill with which their own deck is created and played. While the true evolving metagame may not be practical, it is certainly a goal which gamers can strive to reach.

So, yes, Legacy possesses a much healthier metagame than other formats, and definitely healthier than most other games, however, this does not mean that is Legacy's metagame is actually a healthy and evolving metagame in the pure sense of the term.


How much does a Bazaar of Bagdhad cost right now? Mishra's Workshop? Time Vault? Illusionary Mask? Demand dropped off significantly. Supply therefore increased, since people planned to sell. And yet, the price is still high.

Ah, good card choices to miss the point. Each of these cards are extremely difficult to acquire in the first place. Demand will always be artificially high for these cards, not just in virtue of there use to the metagame, but in virtue of both their natural scarcity and innate powerlevels which are judged to be most likely useful in the future of the Vintage metagame. There are more reasons than the current metagame that pushes the demand and prices so high for these particular cards, however, this is not the case for most mtg cards.


Which implies your goal is to lower the value of cards to increase the people willing to pay for them.

My goal is not to lower the value of cards, nor increase the people willing to pay for them. My goal was to show how increasing the number of people willing to pay for cards could be brought about. There is a difference. I'm just showing that we do make a choice to create a card-value barrier to play Legacy.

Currently, we have created a less than perfectly evolving metagame for the sake of card value. If this is what we want, then that is fine. If you wanted a "deckbuilder's paradise", then we've got other issues at hand to deal with...and thus, the end question still remains, how do we want to define Legacy? Do we want to define it through a lense seeking a true evolving metagame or through a lense concerned more with card value.

peace,
4eak

[Nightmare]

I guess I have an additional thing to say, forgive me if you (4eak) reply before I do.

Why should Legacy strive to exist as a format more similar to Standard than Vintage? After rereading your posts, it seems like that is your underlying theme. In order to fit your personal view of the "deckbuilder's dream" which, in my own humble opinion, is unrealistic in and of itself, you contend that significant changes in the card pool are required at fairly frequent intervals. I know, speaking only for myself, that a format of that type holds very little appeal to me, and all my experience (which counts for something, whether you accept that or not) tells me that I would not be alone in that waning interest.

it stands to reason that you, as the proponent of the changed format, bear the burden of convincing me, as a supporter of the status quo, that your suggested format is preferable to the one which exists today. I've seen you discuss what would be different, but I don't believe you've sufficiently described why this is desireable.

[4eak]

as the proponent of the changed format, bear the burden of convincing me, as a supporter of the status quo, that your suggested format is preferable to the one which exists today. I've seen you discuss what would be different, but I don't believe you've sufficiently described why this is desireable.

You are very smart, and I understand exactly why you have said what you have said. If I were in your shoes, I hope I would say the same thing as well as you have said it. And, I agree, I failed to show why such an evolving metagame is desirable. My apologies.

I hope the article will fill in the gaps of my reasoning. That is the definition of metagame, and I think it is at the heart of the matter when we are attempting to define "Legacy", either through the form of gaming and the fair and evolving metagame or through some degree of card-value retention. The spectrum exists if you understand and agree with the definitions presented in the article.

Again, my goal isn't necessarily to bring to people to push for an evolving metagame. My goal is to help them understand what that evolving metagame means and what it entails, such as how they value their cards. I think the "sleeping" gamers inside people will awaken to the truth of evolving metagame, and I think hardcore gamers will be in a better position to demand exactly what they want after understanding the distinctions I've made.

Oh, and I apologize for the number of edits I have made. Sometimes I think of something else I wanted to say and just put it in moments after submitting the original...

peace,
4eak

[Nightmare]

You sound comfortable with the current metagame, but this is not the same thing as knowing what a healthy metagame is...You do not provide arguments regarding what a healthy metagame exactly is in the first place, nor why that definition is correct (albeit, nor did I until I posted that link for you).That link does nothing to describe the ideal metagame, nor could it, as there is no such thing. Each person plays this game (moreso than many similar games) for their own reasons. Personally, I get little satisfaction out of the deckbuilding aspect of the game, outside my personal metagame tweaks and tuning. Perhaps I am in the minority. That perspective means I have a different view of the ideal metagame than you, an advocate of deckbuilder's paradise. You look for a wide open meta where literally any reasonably well constructed deck is viable. I, as a player more focused on tournament results than deck development, look for a more predictable environment, where my tuning and accurate predictions of the metagame can garner me an advantage in readiness. Neither of these views are incorrect or unreasonable, but my view tends to be the more popular one, as most of the focus of the B&R lists is centered on high level (sanctioned) tournament play.


a.) What is the meaning and purpose of a metagame, and what exactly is a healthy metagame, and why?
b.) How healthy is the Legacy metagame according to the definition?As I said in the interim post, the burden of convincing is on you, as the DCI (the ultimate jury of this discussion) is already convinced that my perspective is in line with their own.


Where we disagree is obviously on the definition of a healthy metagame. While I might admit that Legacy's metagame is currently "healthier" than ever before, that does not mean it is healthy, nor does it mean the game or format is anywhere near a healthy metagame (which is the ideal we are pursuing, no?). As said above, I agree our fundamental disagreement is on what defines the ideal metagame. This is due to our own varying perspectives on the game itself, and our roles within the metagame.


I directed you to an article on the subject of gaming which clearly defines metagame for us. It is obvious that you didn't read it.You posted it after I had begun my reply, I've read it now. I assume this point:

The fair and evolving metagame tests skill in every sense of the term, and nothing else.
refers to this paragraph:

A game is a contest or competition, physical and/or mental, according to certain rules, which is perceived to have irrelevant outcomes beyond the fact you win, lose, or tie, such that: the gamer would play the game simply in virtue of the opportunity of playing the game itself. Perfect games test the skill of the player and nothing else. The game can be against yourself or others (environments are rulesets, not opponents). But, in the end, gaming is a test of one’s skill that should have no real consequence beyond winning, losing, or tying.
Which I agree is the most significant part of the article. However, I think the point the author is trying to make falls short in its applications to Magic, as the scope of skill is drastically different when applied to the spectrum of skillful aspects to the game.

More succinctly, there is a very different skillset utilized to develop decks than there is to play one perfectly, than there is to metagame properly, than there is to outplay your opponent mentally, etc. It's nearly (I'd argue absolutely) impossible for a single metagame to test all those skills together, and as each person can be more skilled at one than another, their personal view of the perfect metagame is varied.


Ah, good card choices to miss the point. Each of these cards are extremely difficult to acquire in the first place. Demand will always be artificially high for these cards, not just in virtue of there use to the metagame, but in virtue of both their natural scarcity and innate powerlevels which are judged to be most likely useful in the future of the Vintage metagame. There are more reasons than the current metagame that pushes the demand and prices so high for these particular cards, however, this is not the case for most mtg cards.

My goal is not to lower the value of cards, nor increase the people willing to pay for them. My goal was to show how increasing the number of people willing to pay for cards could be brought about. There is a difference. I'm just showing that we do make a choice to create a card-value barrier to play Legacy.
At this point, I'm going to end the line of discussion on card value, as I think it's less interesting and fundamental to the discussion than the rest of the debate. I don't want the conversation to get too broad, so let's focus on the other topics.

Double edit - Just so you know, I'm enjoying this discussion a lot. Also, I'm getting lunch. Back at 1.

[4eak]

As I take the title of this post: “The Purpose of Legacy” quite seriously, I realize that I am forced to discuss a relatively broad topic. I cannot answer that question without answering more fundamental ones. Obviously, the assumptions we make will be foundational to how we answer, “What is the purpose of legacy?”.

You have to think first,’ what is a game?’, and ‘what is the purpose of it?’, etc.

Game
MTG
Legacy

There are many, many things to consider in this hierarchy, and understand how we resolve the meaning, origins, and purpose of Legacy from MTG from Game is, unfortunately, a fairly broad topic.

I admit that it is no easy task, and I can see I have not sufficiently described this hierarchy. But, bare in mind, the people who CHOOSE the status quo do need to give an explanation for it, and proper discussion does require them to answer the broad questions regarding the above hierarchy and even the smaller edge issues of things like card-value (which I can see you don’t wish to discuss, even if it an eventual issue that must be discussed to answer the main question of this thread).

So, yes, I agree that I need to provide good arguments. And, I also think that the rest of you do too…you have no warrant to disagree with me if you can’t provide support or evidence for your current beliefs. You also have not provided a proper response or completely supported argument either is the point. This, of course, does not make either one of us correct, I am simply showing that your belief has not been justified as of yet, and so while it is wise to ask me to provide a better argument, it is certainly not wise to think your conclusions are safe without a better argument.

However, in the interest of pursuing truth, I will continue to explain my position. Bare with me, I too have to get to lunch, so my proper response will be later, as I will need a good deal of time to address how the article does give us the proper foundation from which to understand MTG and Legacy in terms of gaming, how we can define their metagames, and even how skill is tested in these environments. In the meantime, it may be worth mulling over that article once again, as it is really aiming at a universal conception of gaming, which is an important part of the hierarachy to be used in defining the purpose of Legacy.

peace,
4eak

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Props to 4eak for carrying the torch.



As I said in the interim post, the burden of convincing is on you, as the DCI (the ultimate jury of this discussion) is already convinced that my perspective is in line with their own.

How did you reach that conclusion?


More succinctly, there is a very different skillset utilized to develop decks than there is to play one perfectly, than there is to metagame properly, than there is to outplay your opponent mentally, etc. It's nearly (I'd argue absolutely) impossible for a single metagame to test all those skills together, and as each person can be more skilled at one than another, their personal view of the perfect metagame is varied.

Enter the purpose of Legacy as a format;

Vintage by its powerful card pool tends to make decks gravitate to a few tried and true strategies. As long as the dominating cards remain legal, even if only as 1-ofs, the skills used in Vintage are really only going to be deck-tweaking and playing. There's not much room for whole-sale deck innovation in Vintage, and when asking yourself The Question, your possible answers are always going to be rather limited. So with regards to Eternal formats, there is a format that supplies a largely predictable meta-game.

Legacy should ideally be on the other end of the spectrum. The answer to The Question should never be totally clear. If the answer is obvious, then the meta-game is solved, and there's no incentive for good players to try anything new.


To add something relevant to the discussion I agree with most of what SpatulaOfTheAges said except this...


...and this is why Legacy is more important for that purpose than Vintage is. Because Legacy has more deck diversity, it provides security to more cards, and thus, to more players.

...which confuses me because I don't get the reasoning behind it.

More decks that are viable answers to The Question = More cards that retain value as an investment.

More cards that retain value = More reason for people to consider buying cards in the first place.

How many people would have actually started playing Magic if there was no secondary market? How many of you would still be playing today if your cards became worthless as soon as you opened the pack? The continuing value of cards after they've been opened, and then after they rotate out of newer formats, is very important for the long-term health of the game as a whole. Legacy is the best vehicle for insuring the long-term value of cards.

If this long-term insurance only applied to a handful of cards, it would be meaningless in all practical terms. It must apply to a wide variety of cards in order for there to be true security for people starting to play the game.

[Nightmare]

Legacy should ideally be on the other end of the spectrum.Why? First of all, I disagree that Vintage is the pinnacle example of the stagnant metagame. Again, I point to the introduction of cards into the metagame at regular intervals to back that point. Certianly, the endgame strategy is similar between a few decks, ie; Storm, but the overall plan to reach that endgame is varied for sure. Even taking your point about vintage as a given, what makes Legacy the default polar opposite? Why should it exist as a completely unpredictable metagame, and what is the allure of such a format? I know, as a player, (and I realize I'm reiterating here) this type of format has far too much unpredictability to be attractive. You can't sufficiently metagame (verb) in such an environment, and you go into every event basically blind. I'd much prefer a format with a defined upper tier of decks, which allows for second tier decks to compete as metagame foils (see: Legacy, today).


How many people would have actually started playing Magic if there was no secondary market?How many people do you think actually gave that any amount of thought before beginning the game? They were far more likely to say "Hey, this game looks fun" than "hey, I can resell all my cards if I decide I don't want to play this format anymore." You seem to be forgetting that the largest group of players in the game doesn't adhere to strict format restrictions, they play with whatever cards they have, regardless of what their value is.


How many of you would still be playing today if your cards became worthless as soon as you opened the pack? The continuing value of cards after they've been opened, and then after they rotate out of newer formats, is very important for the long-term health of the game as a whole. Legacy is the best vehicle for insuring the long-term value of cards.This is false, Matt. How many cards retain their value once they rotate out of Standard? The answer is, as many as see significant play in Extended, which is a significantly lower number than in Standard. Say, 1:10 as a generous estimate. How many retain that value when they rotate out of Extended? Giving the benefit of the doubt, we'll say 1:10 again. That's 1 card out of every small set, and 3 out of every large set that's playable in Legacy/Vintage, and retains its value past Extended. Every card that makes it that far has to compete against every card in existance for the slot in a deck. The longer the game goes on, the more difficult the competition will be. If anything, Legacy is the reason mediocre cards lose their value, not why good ones retain it.

What you're suggesting is artificially deflating the value of good cards by disallowing people to play with them, and artificially inflating (albeit slightly) the value of mediocre cards by proxy. This isn't a solution to the supposed problem at all.


If this long-term insurance only applied to a handful of cards, it would be meaningless in all practical terms. It must apply to a wide variety of cards in order for there to be true security for people starting to play the game.But what you're suggesting doesn't fix that issue. You're taking the insurance away from the cards that need it (the ones with the real investment associated with them), and giving it to the cards which are easier to come by, and therefore in less need of the protection you're giving to them in the first place.

[Tacosnape]

People stay away from Legacy for one reason and one reason only: They don't want to deal with cheesy shit and would rather complain about it than change their decks from casual Legacy decks to either ones packing adequate disruption cards or the contenders themselves.

[MattH]

It would be 'ridiculous' to say that card value isn't a barrier to maximizing the competitive gaming environment.
Maximizing attendance is not the same thing as maximizing competition. This is a HUGE mistaken assumption you're making.


People do irrationally overvalue their cards, and yet they also want to play a game. But, they don't seek true gaming, just some degree of 'gaming' without eliminating their irrational overvaluing of their cards.
You are confusing aesthetic/play value with monetary value. They are two very, very different things.

Finally, you are wrong to assume that price barriers automatically lower the level of play. Attaching a cost to play actually increases the level of competition, as long as the cost isn't [i]too[i/] high. Firstly, it makes sure that only the people who are serious about the game are playing in tournaments, weeding out the people who only want to toss some cards around. People don't take a game seriously when they have nothing on the line. Secondly, because some people have to do without certain cards, it can force people to use their creativity more and invent workarounds.


If people are truly concerned with gaming, and not card value or any other superfluous issues, then they won't care about 'sanctioned' tourneys or not. Look at Vintage. Those people play games, regardless of rating. It is obvious that, in this respect, they play magic to play magic, not for rating.
This is completely false. First off, sanctioning gives a host of benefits to a tournament, which you did not address at all. Rating is just a side benefit. To the extent that Vintage has successful unsanctioned tournaments, it is because they take great pains to replicate as best as possible those benefits that sanctioning brings.

Second, by your logic, there should be a spate of infinite-proxy vintage events. Yet there are almost none. The standard for proxy tournaments is nine proxies, because most decks have about nine cards which push the "price barrier" past the limit I referenced above. A nine-proxy Vintage deck costs about the same as a Legacy deck.


People stay away from Legacy for one reason and one reason only: They don't want to deal with cheesy shit and would rather complain about it than change their decks from casual Legacy decks to either ones packing adequate disruption cards or the contenders themselves.
In my experience, they also do it because they don't own the cards for it. And it is not simply price barrier; it is usually the case that they COULD afford to play, but they would have to give up Standard or Extended to do so, and are not willing to.

In my experience, what it takes to be a Legacy player is not so much willingness to pay a high monetary cost (no format is cheap), but rather a desire to play with cards that other formats won't let you use. Legacy is relatively unpopular - you have to WANT to play it, it's never just playing what everyone else is playing.

[4eak]

That link does nothing to describe the ideal metagame, nor could it, as there is no such thing.

First, the fact that you use the word “metagame” to mean something at all implies there is a point of reference that explains the perfect function and form of a “metagame” in a universal sense (that goes for all instances that “metagame” can be attributed). You can’t escape the possibility of the ideal X of something as a reference; it is a logical requirement of language. The article gave a solid definition of the universal metagame; it is simply up to us to understand how MTG/Legacy attempts to mimic that form. Clearly, MTG and Legacy do not mimic it perfectly, and insofar as it doesn’t, it is not a pure game, nor does it possess a pure, evolving metagame. Certainly the perfect and pure game just might be impractical, but it is the ideal that existing games attempt to mimic.

The reality is that MTG as an activity (and Legacy as a sub-game type) doesn’t conform to the ideal, pure game. This doesn’t mean that we can say, “it has nothing to do with the universal form of gaming or metagame”. The imperfect attempt to mimic the universal form of gaming prevents us from calling MTG/Legacy a perfect game with a perfectly fair, healthy, and fully evolving metagame.


Each person plays this game (moreso than many similar games) for their own reasons.

Without a doubt. People participate in the activity called “Magic the Gathering” for different reasons (hopefully their own---darn those blasted robots and flocking individualists!). The point I’m making is that only some of those people participate in MTG (or Legacy for that matter) for the sake of pure gaming (seeking the deckbuilder’s paradise), and also that many people who think they seek pure gaming often don’t actually seek pure gaming (they just don’t realize it). What I have previously described points towards a community that participates in MTG and Legacy, some for pure gaming, some for card-value, a lot in between, and others for miscellaneous reasons. In the end, the vast majority of people who call themselves “competitive Legacy players” fall into the spectrum I’ve presented.


Personally, I get little satisfaction out of the deckbuilding aspect of the game, outside my personal metagame tweaks and tuning. Perhaps I am in the minority. That perspective means I have a different view of the ideal metagame than you, an advocate of deckbuilder's paradise. You look for a wide open meta where literally any reasonably well constructed deck is viable. I, as a player more focused on tournament results than deck development, look for a more predictable environment, where my tuning and accurate predictions of the metagame can garner me an advantage in readiness.

Ah, so that is the point. You do not participate in Legacy to game in the absolute sense of the term, clearly you wish for Legacy to be defined as something other than pure competitive gaming. You have justified that you aren’t purely gaming, and you have essentially explained that you prefer a metagame that doesn’t test skill in every sense of the term, and nothing else. I find nothing wrong with that, it is completely up to you what you pursue.

I have no problem with your desires in this respect. Honestly, if you participate in Legacy for other reasons than pure gaming, that is your choice. However, this does not mean that you can say that a.) the current MTG/Legacy environment is pure gaming and b.) you currently are gaming in a fair and evolving metagame when you participate in Legacy. You can certainly say that you participate in Legacy to do as you have explained. And, if the majority of Legacy players hope to do as you explain, then great!—this is the choice of the market, and how the market chooses to define itself on that spectrum is what the meaning and purpose of Legacy will be.

I will reiterate once again (because I think you have not understood exactly what I am advocating/explaining), I’m not necessarily advocating that Legacy should conform to form of gaming (or, atleast, I did not mean to do so). What I am saying is that we need to call what we are doing what it is….not entirely pure gaming in a fair and evolving metagame. If that is what people want, then fine, our work is done. However, if people want to reach the ideal pure game, then obviously there is work to be done. My explanation is not meant to promote a direction I believe Legacy or MTG should or should not go (not that I don’t have a preference). My original explanation was to explain how to understand and achieve the aims of SpatulaOfTheAges, who appeared to seek to challenge the status quo, wishing for the meaning and purpose of Legacy to better conform to the form of gaming with a fair and evolving metagame. Since that post, I’ve been explaining why Legacy is what it is, and the reason it currently isn’t a pure game with a perfectly evolving metagame, why it is what is, and hopefully, how it is possible to change the meaning and purpose of Legacy if the market so chooses (educated markets make educated choices).

With respect, you have done a good job of explaining (even if you didn’t mean to) where I believe the majority of Legacy participants stand on the issue of the Purpose of Legacy. You describe something that isn’t pure gaming, and if Legacy participants seek such a thing, then good for them! I assume Legacy will continue on its path, one that remains on the spectrum I have described, and one that, to some degree, still attempts to mimic the form of gaming, even if imperfectly. For those who are not pleased, either seeking more or less gameness, (for example: those seeking a deckbuilder’s paradise), I described the mechanism of understanding the issue, and I hope at least a few could find it useful.

The mechanism I describe is not flawed. However, it is clear that people have very different preferences about the meaning and purpose of Legacy. Additionally, people don’t like to be told they aren’t purely gaming and that Legacy doesn’t possess a perfectly fair and evolving metagame. The pursuit of the status quo leads them to deny the mechanism, but without justification. Embrace the mechanism, just state that you don’t want pure gaming, it is that simple. In your case, you prefer Legacy to be defined as somewhere more in the middle of that spectrum, in my case, I prefer something closer to pure gaming. I’m not saying either of our preferences are incorrect, I’m simply showing how we can understand those preferences.

peace,
4eak

[Nightmare]

First, the fact that you use the word “metagame” to mean something at all implies there is a point of reference that explains the perfect function and form of a “metagame” in a universal sense (that goes for all instances that “metagame” can be attributed). You can’t escape the possibility of the ideal X of something as a reference; it is a logical requirement of language.I disagree, but that's already been established. The concept of "ideal" is subjective, and what constitutes your ideal metagame can be, and is, very different from my own interpretation of the ideal metagame. I accept the quoted part of my post was misleading, it probably should have said, "nor could it, as there are so many interpretations of what it is, that coming to a concensus on a single perfect metagame is improbable enough to make it an unrealistic expectation."


The reality is that MTG as an activity (and Legacy as a sub-game type) doesn’t conform to the ideal, pure game. This doesn’t mean that we can say, “it has nothing to do with the universal form of gaming or metagame”. The imperfect attempt to mimic the universal form of gaming prevents us from calling MTG/Legacy a perfect game with a perfectly fair, healthy, and fully evolving metagame. If, by its intrinsic nature, can't conform to the concept of the "perfect game," why destabalize the existing structure of the game in order to force it to try?


Without a doubt. People participate in the activity called “Magic the Gathering” for different reasons (hopefully their own---darn those blasted robots and flocking individualists!).I'm hoping you're just lightening the discussion, and didn't miss my point. Let's assume that's the case.


The point I’m making is that only some of those people participate in MTG (or Legacy for that matter) for the sake of pure gaming (seeking the deckbuilder’s paradise), and also that many people who think they seek pure gaming often don’t actually seek pure gaming (they just don’t realize it).This is also my point. Furthermore, the portion of the people who are striving for pure gaming are such a minority that it would cause WotC more harm than good to cater to those players, as it would fundamentally alter the structure of the game, and it's the game as it exists today (well, up to this point, anyway) that drew the players here to begin with.


Ah, so that is the point. You do not participate in Legacy to game in the absolute sense of the term, clearly you wish for Legacy to be defined as something other than pure competitive gaming. You have justified that you aren’t purely gaming, and you have essentially explained that you prefer a metagame that doesn’t test skill in every sense of the term, and nothing else. I find nothing wrong with that, it is completely up to you what you pursue.Perhaps it's the nomenclaiture that's the problem. You refer to the manner in which I play the game as "other than pure," which implies it is somehow incorrect or impure. Obviously, I have to take offense to that. To further state that the way I play the game isn't a test of skill (or rather, not every skill and only skill) further exasorbates the offense. Tell me, if not skill, then what am I testing?



However, this does not mean that you can say that a.) the current MTG/Legacy environment is pure gaming and b.) you currently are gaming in a fair and evolving metagame when you participate in Legacy.Not only am I not going to say Legacy is pure gaming, I'll say again that I don't believe it should be! It changes the fundamental dynamics of the tournament level experience in a manner that is unsuitable for those hoping to gain advantage from format knowledge and preparation. In your concept of the ideal metagame, every round would be a complete crapshoot on what deck I would play against, and I would literally have to prepare for every possible contingency (without access to any cards which give me a significant edge) to hope to compete. That holds no attraction for me.

Additionally, I absolutely can say with belief and conviction that I am participating in a fair and evolving metagame when I participate in Legacy. Only someone unfamiliar with the workings of the format could disagree. Perhaps the evolution doesn't come as fast as you would like, or isn't as radical as you would like, but it's anything but stagnant.


I will reiterate once again (because I think you have not understood exactly what I am advocating/explaining), I’m not necessarily advocating that Legacy should conform to form of gaming (or, atleast, I did not mean to do so).However, meaning to do so or not (lots of "o's" in that fragment), that's exactly the position you've placed yourself in. For example:


What I am saying is that we need to call what we are doing what it is….not entirely pure gaming in a fair and evolving metagame. If that is what people want, then fine, our work is done. However, if people want to reach the ideal pure game, then obviously there is work to be done.Again it comes back to tone. Based on this quote, you state that what we are playing in is not ideal, and that there is a "more perfect" way to play, which implies that you would like to play in such a "perfect" environment, which makes you an advocate of said environment.


Since that post, I’ve been explaining why Legacy is what it is, and the reason it currently isn’t a pure game with a perfectly evolving metagame, why it is what is, and hopefully, how it is possible to change the meaning and purpose of Legacy if the market so chooses (educated markets make educated choices).The educated choice is not necessarily your choice. Don't imply that if the market choses not to conform to your concept of the ideal game that it is somehow because we are uneducated of our alternatives. Even with the knowledge of this alternative you present, I still chose the way we play today.


With respect, you have done a good job of explaining (even if you didn’t mean to) where I believe the majority of Legacy participants stand on the issue of the Purpose of Legacy.I assure you, I meant to.


People don’t like to be told they aren’t purely gaming and that Legacy doesn’t possess a perfectly fair and evolving metagame... just state that you don’t want pure gaming, it is that simple... I prefer something closer to pure gaming.
I’m not saying either of our preferences are incorrect,Just that yours is more correct.

[4eak]

The concept of "ideal" is subjective, and what constitutes your ideal metagame can be, and is, very different from my own interpretation of the ideal metagame.

Ideal is not subjective. Ideal is not relative. This is the reason we have reference in language. While we can both say that the other doesn't know the ideal, you still have to assume the ideal exists in a static absolute, else what is the point of talking? (There is no point to talking if A is not absolute A).

Additionally, "Ideal" has only referred to a point on the spectrum. If a game is "ideal", then it is a pure game. This is very different from whether an activity is "ideal" my friend. If an activity is "ideal" then it is purely that activity. Legacy is certainly purely Legacy, and you believe it is "ideal" where it is right now. However, this does not say anything in the way of whether or not it is the "ideal" game (pure game).


If, by its intrinsic nature, can't conform to the concept of the "perfect game," why destabalize the existing structure of the game in order to force it to try?...the portion of the people who are striving for pure gaming are such a minority that it would cause WotC more harm than good to cater to those players, as it would fundamentally alter the structure of the game, and it's the game as it exists today (well, up to this point, anyway) that drew the players here to begin with.


I didn't say we should destabilize the existing structure of the game, but I did I say it was possible to change it on the spectrum. I also said for those who wanted to change the purpose of Legacy, they should go for it. You obviously don't want it...so? Does that give you the right to deny the desires of others to change Legacy to something different? Honestly, I look at it as a market choice...I'm saying this is how it occurs, I'm not saying what should occur.


I'm hoping you're just lightening the discussion, and didn't miss my point. Let's assume that's the case.

Yeah, I was just kidding around (all in good fun). I hope the rest of the post showed I didn't miss your point.


Perhaps it's the nomenclaiture that's the problem. You refer to the manner in which I play the game as "other than pure," which implies it is somehow incorrect or impure. Obviously, I have to take offense to that

You keep missing the point. There is a difference between calling something what it is (defining it), and advocating what it should be. You think I'm just advocating that Legacy should move towards the form of gaming. You base this upon my use of the word pure...so i'll define pure for you.

I look at Orange, I say, that is neither pure red nor pure yellow. Orange is defined as being in the middle of that spectrum. Move your hue-marker on the spectrum in one direction or the other and that point's purity of either red or yellow will increase while the other decreases. Take pure in the sense of a color spectrum, not pure to mean "sinners and saints".

I definitely mean you don't advocate "pure" gaming as well.


Not only am I not going to say Legacy is pure gaming, I'll say again that I don't believe it should be! It changes the fundamental dynamics of the tournament level experience in a manner that is unsuitable for those hoping to gain advantage from format knowledge and preparation. In your concept of the ideal metagame, every round would be a complete crapshoot on what deck I would play against, and I would literally have to prepare for every possible contingency (without access to any cards which give me a significant edge) to hope to compete. That holds no attraction for me.

Without a doubt, and I've explicity stated it several times, MTG and Legacy do attempt to conform with the form of gaming. Yes, the activity we call Legacy really is very, very close to pure gaming. It, however, is not pure gaming, nor does it have a pure evolving metagame. Your preference and this fact are very different.

While pure gaming "holds no attraction for [you]", it does for others.


Additionally, I absolutely can say with belief and conviction that I am participating in a fair and evolving metagame when I participate in Legacy. Only someone unfamiliar with the workings of the format could disagree. Perhaps the evolution doesn't come as fast as you would like, or isn't as radical as you would like, but it's anything but stagnant.

I apologize if I've somehow made you think that I don't consider Legacy to have some evolution in its metagame. The point is that it isn't a perfectly evolving metagame--which you have over and over stated you don't want...which is fine. However, as you have already stated, Legacy isn't about pure gaming, and if this is the case, then by definition, Legacy does not have a perfectly fair and truly pure evolving metagame. Certainly it evolves at the rate and degree that attacts you, but this is very different.


Again it comes back to tone. Based on this quote, you state that what we are playing in is not ideal, and that there is a "more perfect" way to play, which implies that you would like to play in such a "perfect" environment, which makes you an advocate of said environment.

Refer to the Red-Yellow Spectrum where Legacy is Orange. I'm considering how close Orange is to either 'pure and perfect' Red or 'pure and perfect' Yellow.


The educated choice is not necessarily your choice. Don't imply that if the market choses not to conform to your concept of the ideal game that it is somehow because we are uneducated of our alternatives. Even with the knowledge of this alternative you present, I still chose the way we play today.


You still miss the point. Education has everything to do with understanding the mechanism and where you are on that spectrum of preference. So, when you become better educated about where you are on that spectrum, you are in a better position to demand exactly what you want.


Just that yours is more correct.

Lol. It is true, I am correct about the definitions presented. However, you keep putting words in my mouth, reading into my tone instead of my content, when you think I'm saying that "my preference for Legacy is the 'more correct' preference to have". I have explicitly stated this isn't the case. What I saying is this: My understanding of what Legacy currently means (its purpose) is more correct than yours. Knowing what Legacy is (by definition) and knowing where it ought to be are strictly different things--do no confuse these please.

I'm saying I know where Legacy is (orange), and I understand the red to yellow spectrum, and that I'm advocating such a spectrum is the reality of the situation. This does not mean I am advocating any place for Legacy on that spectrum. The only times I advocate a place on a spectrum is when I see an iteration of desires for MTG/Legacy (Spatula or you for example) where I can explain how your desires fit on the spectrum.

I'm not here to argue about where it should be, first I'm here to argue how we can even speak about where it should be....Once that is accomplished, then we are in a better position to make "educated" judgements.

The preferences for Legacy are strictly different than the system used to explain them. I'm explaining the system, and how your preference works in that system (even if I don't prefer the same thing as you in that system). This is the market at work. You hate it or love it, but you are a part of it. If Legacy changes, then of course, your preference will be "destroyed" as you put it. Such is the way of the market.

The system works. Don't throw the system away because you misread my tone or because you don't like how the system reveals the possibility of the market changing and implications of it.

And, finally, I apologize if you take the discussion as a personal attack. I was trying to speak about the argument at hand. I mean no personal offense to you.

peace,
4eak

[Nightmare]

I look at Orange, I say, that is neither pure red nor pure yellow. Orange is defined as being in the middle of that spectrum. Move your hue-marker on the spectrum in one direction or the other and the purity of either red or yellow will increase while the other decreases. Take pure in the sense of a color spectrum, not pure to mean "sinners and saints".This is possibly the most helpful description you've posted. It makes more sense in an unbiased way under this depiction. The question that begs asking, though, is: If pure gaming is yellow, what's red?

Also, you didn't answer what was a non-rhetorical question:

if not skill, then what am I testing?


Legacy isn't about pure gaming, and if this is the case, then by definition, Legacy does not have a perfectly fair and truly pure evolving metagame. Certainly it evolves at the rate and degree that attacts you, but this is very different.I agree. That isn't what you stated, though. It doesn't matter, we're debating semantics on this point.


You still miss the point. Education has everything to do with understanding the mechanism and where you are on that spectrum of preference. So, when you become better educated about where you are on that spectrum, you are in a better position to demand exactly what you want. Again, with this new Y---R analogy, I can better see your position.


My understand of what Legacy currently means is more correct than yours. Knowing what Legacy is (by definition) and knowing where is ought to be are strictly different things--do no confuse these please.I think we both have a firm grasp on what Legacy currently means, although your assessment looks at it in relation to where it can potentially be on the spectrum, while mine is focused on where it is now. Subtly, but importantly different.

[frogboy]

4eak,

I'm not sure "social contract" means what you think it means, particularly with regard to economics.

[4eak]

I will get to your post on Monday (I hope you don't mind the wait). Weekend-Junk will keep me too busy to answer your questions and reply to your comments with the proper responses they deserve.

Until that time, I suggest you re-read what I has been written and also that article as well (I know I'll be doing the same come Monday). Now that we've had some time to "flesh-out" the discussion further, and we seem to be speaking the same language a little more, I think we may be in a better position to consider the article and the posts we've made.

I believe the answers to your questions (or at least the premises to make such conclusions) have already been written, and that is why I ask you to go over those posts once again. Don't think I didn't purposefully skip certain comments and questions--I skipped them because I felt they would not be fruitful to the discussion at the time. It isn't that I don't have the answer, it is usually that someone isn't ready for that answer until I've defended something more germane to the argument (arguments are like building blocks, you definitely need the foundation before you can understand the conclusion). And, if you still can't think of the answer, I'll be back to show it on Monday. I suppose it would have been better if my first post were an elaborate article on the subject; however, for some reason I answered more whimsically, and obviously it has required me to draw the argument out in an inefficient (yet still productive, thankfully) manner.

Cheers.

peace,
4eak

P.S. Please excuse my personality. I always sound arrogant, that doesn't make my arguments wrong though...it might mean I am an a-hole, and I'm willing to accept that. Usually my comments are still worth having around, regardless of the tone extracted from the contents of my writing.

[SpikeyMikey]

I'd like to know why everyone seems to think that the changing and evolving metagame requires lots of B/R action. You do realize that playable decks are created far more often than they are in T2, the supposedly most fluid format. Take a look at what's happened since the creation of Legacy:

-Everyone goes ga ga over the trash artifact acceleration. Doomsayers claim Belcher and Tendrils combo will dominate the format.

-Everyone realizes that the artifact acceleration is trash, except in a few, limited uses. Aggro dominates the format, with Landstill as the last bastion of control, played mostly by people that would play blue control in a format with no counterspells. A little deck called ATS is garnering support on the East Coast.

-Survival decks explode, doomsayers claim Survival of the Fittest will dominate the format until WotC bans it ATS, RGSA, and WeldSur become the big 3 to beat.

-People realize that Goblins is quietly beating the snot out of the SotF decks which don't come online until turn 4. Doomsayers snidely point out that the best players in Legacy are losing to scrubs with extended decks.

-Solidarity hits its most popular point, which is to say 4 people are now playing it. Gro becomes a force in the format to counteract this increasing Solidarity threat.

-I mostly quit watching Legacy because there is no community in Wisconsin, and I'm too poor to buy cards.

-I come back and a few weeks later notice a thread in the Community board for a 2 man tournament involving 31 viable decks, and there has to be discussion on which decks, because there are more than 31 viable decks available.

Thus ends the all-encompassing history of Legacy. In all seriousness though, the format shifts every couple of months. Oh, there are some staples that hold, Goblins is almost always a contender, Landstill will hang on in some form or another, there is always at least one Zoo style 3c aggro that can compete, and a few non counter controls like Enchantress or MWC or Survival-whatever around, but new concepts are coming out all the time. Frankly, I think Legacy, by virtue of both it's wide open card pool and flat power level can shift around on it's own quite a bit without the introduction new cards, just with R/P/S style metagaming.

What scares me more than anything is new sets coming out. It's great, because it produces a little action to roil the waters and keep people from bitching about the lack of change, but I'm waiting for the next Mirrodin, the one that completely fucks Legacy the way the first one fucked Vintage. What scares me is people saying they want to see things shaken up by Wizards, because that's what the T1 community was saying, and they got it, in spades. You want change? Innovate. It's not hard. All you gotta do is messing with card synergies and keep throwing shit at the wall until something sticks. In Legacy, it happens like every 3rd or 4th deck idea you have. An SDZ variant made T8 at the first Legacy World Champs at GenCon. BHWC Landstill, a 4c Landstill variant, made T8 at the second. I barely even play this format, and I've got decks that I originally designed in 2 Worlds. I'm not saying this to try and sound like I'm the man, I'm saying, if I can do it, anyone can. Just tinker around with ideas.

As far as the value vs. play thing goes, value is unimportant. Legacy is the kind of community T1 used to be. I used to loan out my P9(granted, back then, you could pick up a Mox for $100, and a Lotus for $250-300), just so people could play the decks they wanted to. At one tourney, I had a full set of P9 out, plus LoA, Drains, some Duals, and a few other misc. cards. I played Sligh. I'd rather see a larger and more diverse field than have the uber money cards. If I want an investment, I go to Goldman Sachs, not StarCity. I was considering going to the first Legacy Worlds, and Scrumdogg offered to mail me a deck, since I left all my cards in San Diego with my roomate. Part of that is because Scrum is a gentleman and a scholar, but it illustrates my point. We've got a nice community, and by and large, people are more concerned with seeing it grow than seeing card prices double.

Last, but not least, I think Spat is right. There is at least a de facto agreement between WotC and the community. If we don't hold up our end, that is, if we don't keep buying cards, they stop providing support. If they don't keep the format balanced, we quit buying cards. I didn't start playing 1.5 until T1 got gay. Just because we didn't all sit down and sign a literal contract with MaRo doesn't mean that the agreement doesn't exist. I don't have a contract with Taco Bell either, but if their menu starts to suck, I'm going to stop buying their food.

[Hummingbird TG]

BHWC Landstill, a 4c Landstill variant, made T8 at the second.

Oh, you meant Nick Trudeau, right? Um...okay. Need I say anymore?

[raharu]

You want change? Innovate. It's not hard. All you gotta do is messing with card synergies and keep throwing shit at the wall until something sticks. In Legacy, it happens like every 3rd or 4th deck idea you have.

I entirely agree. This hits the argument of card price vs. accessibility on the head. testing "true, all encompassing" skill (which, by 4eak's definition, includes deckbuilding) means that you have to make new decks. New, innovative decks generally don't use many "expensive and powerful" cards. this is because those cards are, most of the time, only good in the tier 1 decks that use them. I haven't posted a deck I'm working on yet because I want to play test it more and take it to tournament beforehand, but the most expensive thing in the entire deck is Duress and Cabal Therapy, which aren't even needed for the deck to run and are only main boarded because it gets raped by combo. The next most expensive thing is Life from the Loam,which is not very expensive by any means. if you want to argue that "pure gaming" is a test of skill (which includes deckbuilding, by 4eak's definition) means that you should be making new decks anyway, but arguing that price drives players away from legacy while advocating it as a pure gaming format is inherently contradictory. If you want an evolving format, don't advocate persecuting the best decks, advocate new, innovative skill in deckbuilding and don't ban every good card that pops up in the format after a deck breaks it.

That's all i have to say, and i couldn't concoct a closing statement, so yeah, I'm done.

[SpikeyMikey]

Oh, you meant Nick Trudeau, right? Um...okay. Need I say anymore?

Look, I really don't know much about this Nick thing, since I almost never talk to him anymore, but if I said Mike Long took my deck to a PT and won with it, would you be like "yeah, but it's Mike Long"? It's still a solid deck. Not format breaking no, but you can produce solid decks that will see play if you want to.

If you sit down for an afternoon and brainstorm deck ideas, you can probably come up with half a dozen tier 2 and tier 1.5 ideas, some of which might actually be viable tier 1 decks, if you put the time and tweaking into them. The format is so balanced, nearly anything is possible. I'm always tinkering with ideas, it gives me something to do while I'm at work.