Brainstorm
Force of Will
Lion's Eye Diamond
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Tarmogoyf
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Goblin Lackey
Standstill
Natural Order
My vote is to ban Delver, Snapcaster, and Terminus. You can throw TNN in there, as well.
Alternatively, ban things until Wild Nacatl is good. And then don't ban Wild Nacatl.
I will
You robbed me of all the fun. Of course my usage of words was like trolling. If I am forced to be serious, I have to admit I agree with almost all you wrote.
And the difference between persons A, B and C is not only about how they measure diversity but also about what they are looking for in the game in order to enjoy it. Of course if, as you pointed out, one's goal is to be a creative deckbuilder, then being "limited" by the existence of "the best option" would sound bad.
But I still agree with myself and don't think every point of view is equal.
For example, person C who loves deckbuilding, actually isn't limited by the existence of the best option (let's say, the cantrip cartel).
It's only when he adds a second requirement that things start to go wrong, that one being "I also want my creative deck to be competitive". Sorry: that's not possible. But not because I personally like this, or because Wizards is poorly managing the ban list. It is so by the very nature of the game (maybe of many games if you start reasoning with a game theory approach): "best" things tend to emerge when the metagame begins to be solved. So actually person C is being unreasonable in requesting two mutually exclusive concept, like an unstoppable force and an unmovable resistance. "build whatever you like" and "win with whatever you like" can't go together. Very sorry, but not the fault of person A.
Also compare Legacy metagame in the last few years with standard metagame in the last few years and try again convincing me that the card pool and the power level are the problems.
As for the quantification of the number of cards overlap before it being "too much", I think we almost already are in the 30 cards range, but I don't see the problem; there is still people who enjoys Vintage, you know, and if you forget for a moment MUD and Dredge (big things to forget) your overlap between decks could go up to 50 and you could still find people who can appreciate diversity.
TL;DR I think people who focus mostly on card diversity (instead of strategic diversity), while still claiming that the thing they appreciate most is the gameplay experience*, are unable to appreciate subtleties, even if of course they are entitled to their opinions.
(*both requests are reasonable if taken alone, they just don't go together necessarily, and they happen to be mutually exclusive in legacy)
Megadeus explained the irrelevance of strategic diversity as a goal in a way I think no one should be able to fail to understand. If you understand the example, then you also understand why strategic diversity is an irrelevant, narrow concept that can only be used to qualify the bare minimum quality of a good format.
In relation to Talpa's comment (if I understood it), I would say the opposite is more plausible. Players who are satisfied with strategic diversity don't seem to appreciate format diversity; there is no reason to believe the opposite, that appreciation of format diversity is in conflict with appreciation of playstyle, play patterns etc. All this is naturally included in a diverse metagame.
Yeah, I've said it for awhile now, just ban stuff until Wild Nacatl is playable. Or until Goblins is Tier One again. I mean, that's basically the same thing.
I think the printing of Delver more than anything else is when the format really took a left turn into bullshit. Blue should just not, under any circumstances, have the best aggro one-drop.
While we are wish-listing bad shit we wish was playable, we should ban everything until Dust Elemental is playable, then all quit because no one wants to play my shit format formulated on the poor taste of sour grapes.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
Nobody said ban everything until Nacatl is good seriously. Just ban the one card that should've been banned 7 or more years ago. You could probably stand to unban at least a few cards in the wake of the great unmulliganer
Put on your war paint, this is the fight that should be happening. Blue should have NEVER gotten such efficient aggressive creatures. Delver, Snappy, TNN, V. Clique, should have been printed in different colors. Terminus is fine, it's a bitch, but the hoops to make it work, I'm fine with it. Tucking is better than exiling, so many different ways to shuffle the library.
Cantrip-cartel or efficient beaters, blue shouldn't have both.
When Canadian thresh first came onto the scene it had to run green beaters because blue had shit all to offer and barely had enough blue to make force work. Now blue has one of the best aggressive creatures (delver), evasive creatures (TNN) and a ton of efficient, versatile creatures like snapcaster and clique. The problem now is that giving other colors stronger cards wont do shit because in order to be playable they have to be cheap, if they are cheap they can be splashed, and since cantrips are the only game in town when it comes to card consistency (loam/elves/library/or whatever else is a distant second in this regard), and consistency is really important, they will always have a home there, which is basically what delver and midrange lists have become nowadays.
Nice try
I am not understanding what you mean with "format diversity" as opposed to "strategic diversity". I suppose you mean there can't be different playstyle, different play patterns, a diverse metagame UNLESS there is also card diversity. I disagree. And I don't think I am failing to understand Megadeus example:
Because it's simply an exaggeration. Even though I don't know modern and Tron enough to even evaluate if what he said isn't completely wrong in regards to the assignation of an archetype (maybe they are all three ramps, full stop) surely legacy is not in that exact situation, so what he wrote is irrelevant and an obvious straw-man.
I am not saying you should stop telling you love CARD diversity. You should just stop using false arguments like "that is detrimental to format diversity" to support your preferences. Just count the archetype that can be considered tiers and this is a sufficient demonstration that legacy does not lack format diversity. Of course if we disagree on the goals we can never agree on the means to reach it. Just stop pretending you share the same goals
They can very well be. Power level alone is not a sufficient reason to say a thing can't be skill testing. Nor it would be an hypothetical lack of format diversity: the mirror match can be skill testing too.
That doesn't mean I don't see why delver or TNN can't be considered a design "failure". But still I don't think they could ever be considered ban worthy.
This.
Is pretty simple to see, and i wrote the same some months ago.
There are some people like Talpa, that maybe for their own nature (talpa in italian means Mole, the animal) can't see this.
Talpa You can call a first dish of Pasta in a lot of way, maybe Alfredo (even if in italy does not exist) but in the end is the same carbohydrates.
Same thing with blue shell. You can build a different deck around, beatdown with shadow instead of tnn, remove creature with fatal push or kolaghan or stp, but is the same blue shell.
Now lots of player has less interest in playing legacy because if they don't want to use that shell, they have to: or run with a combo, or build a deck that has only cards to disrupt that blue shell, in that case You have to run awfull situational cards, and you expose your deck at variance because of lack of manipulation.
That in the ends means if i want to beat blue shell i have to be lucky at drawning.
That is not so attractive. -> format is not attractive -> hope something change.
just my 2 cents.
All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
PM me if you want to contribute!
So, based on Megadeus's example I found it apparent that strategic diversity is possible while still having very low diversity in the format. Or, in other words, a strategically diverse format can still be very monotonous and boring for every single legacy player regardless of their preferences. So, I didn't attempt to define diversity, and I'm using the term widely in a way that includes all legacy players' idea of what diversity is. I think when we try to raise our understanding of format diversity beyond strategic diversity is when we are discussing something more relevant. Strategic diversity is great as a lowest bar of requirement for diversity, but if we want to have a meaningful understanding of diversity it needs to go beyond strategic diversity.
Exaggeration or not, it proves the point. It is irrelevant if it is an exaggeration. It is an example that shows you easily that the requirement of strategic diversity for a good format is not a sufficient requirement for a good format.And I don't think I am failing to understand Megadeus example:
Because it's simply an exaggeration. Even though I don't know modern and Tron enough to even evaluate if what he said isn't completely wrong in regards to the assignation of an archetype (maybe they are all three ramps, full stop) surely legacy is not in that exact situation, so what he wrote is irrelevant and an obvious straw-man.
I didn't fully understand this, will read it again. I think however it would be good to try to write down what I think good format diversity could look like [edit: I think it would be good if we all reflect on what level of format diversity we want/need/require; just arguing for more or less of it is so abstract and can be hard to relate to. And also to specify what the proposed changes, bannings etc, might result in]. I'll consider that for the coming weeks, although it doesn't need to be very extensive I just try to focus on other things (like work).I am not saying you should stop telling you love CARD diversity. You should just stop using false arguments like "that is detrimental to format diversity" to support your preferences. Just count the archetype that can be considered tiers and this is a sufficient demonstration that legacy does not lack format diversity. Of course if we disagree on the goals we can never agree on the means to reach it. Just stop pretending you share the same goals
Last edited by pettdan; 09-08-2018 at 06:01 PM.
What deck do you want to play that you currently can't? Why do you think it ought to be competitive?
This makes no sense. Strategic diversity is the only relevant measure of diversity, because it is what makes matchups interesting and varied.
Consider a format in which the legal cards are exactly:
1W: 2/2
1U: 2/2
1B: 2/2
1R: 2/2
1G: 2/2
WU: 2/2
WB: 2/2
WR: 2/2
.
.
.
RG: 2/2
That is, the 15 different costs you could give a bear. Technically, this format would be more "diverse" by your measure than a format that had only the five monocolor bears, but it would be a vacuous distinction because all of the games would play out the exact same way. Having an arbitrary number of differently named and colored pokemon is not a relevant characteristic when evaluating meaningful differences between decks.
If, instead, what you're trying to say is that you prefer formats with higher variance than Legacy has, I am pleased to introduce you to Modern, Standard, and Limited, all of which have much flatter power levels and are much more draw and matchup dependent than Legacy. Fortunately, because we have these formats, we don't have to make Legacy, one of the few magic formats where a reasonable level of consistency can be employed/expected, into more of a high variance format.
Also, I know it's an exaggeration, but "banning everything until Wild Nacatl is playable" would make for easily the most horrible eternal format. The banned list for that format would be long enough that you could make a format out of just the cards on the list, and I guarantee it would be more awesome than the "Wild Nacatl is playable" format
Last edited by taconaut; 09-11-2018 at 01:17 PM.
There are currently 2984 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2984 guests)