Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 83

Thread: [Free Article] A Mystifying Decision

  1. #21
    Bands with Others
    menace13's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2009
    Location

    NY, NY
    Posts

    1,220

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by DragoFireheart View Post
    I don't think the matchup before the ban matters much now that MT is banned. It goes without saying that regardless of how good or bad it was, it's now worse without MT.

    I'm arguing that even without MT, Reanimator still has a good Zoo matchup. The fact that IBA didn't even know that Steelwind has vigilance and pro-green basically makes his argument on that regard moot.
    I'm pretty sure IBA knows what a Sphinx does and it was just a brainfart, You're Still my people's Asshole buddy!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavius The Great View Post
    Respect my shine bitch!

  2. #22
    Don't ping the hydra
    DrJones's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2007
    Location

    Spain
    Posts

    107,480

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Hehehe, I still remember back in GP madrid, when TWO different reanimator players reanimated the Sphinx to try to stop my Kavu Predator, true story.

  3. #23
    (' ' '\( 0 ,o)/''')
    TheInfamousBearAssassin's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2004
    Location

    Northern Virginia
    Posts

    6,627

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    My information from people that played the decks prior to the bannings was that Reanimator had a slight edge. Reanimate in particular was a terrible card in that matchup if it was later than turn 2. Especially if you're having to Thoughtseize cards before that. It's misleading to say that Reanimator has a lot of card draw when it has to spend that card draw finding Entomb and Exhume in the first place. But yes, I apologize for misremembering Sphinx's abilities and/or not reading the card tag.
    For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
    And found I was for endurance made

  4. #24
    No time to actually play Legacy
    atropos's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jun 2009
    Location

    Washington, D.C.
    Posts

    138

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    This was an extremely well-written and reasoned article. I completely agree with Chris and I really do hope that DCI realizes their mistake.

  5. #25

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin View Post

    This article starts and stops with fundamentally flawed assumptions and an unwillingness to take the offered explanation, that the purpose of banning Mystical Tutor was to make the format more enjoyable, at face value.
    Why should we credit the DCI's idea that the format is more enjoyable without Mystical Tutor? What evidence do they advance in support of such a proposition? Moreover, what is the scope of such a claim? It's a justification with limitless breadth in terms of potential applicability, and as precedent.

  6. #26
    Treshplayer
    Mad Zur's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2003
    Location

    VA
    Posts

    611

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by blueneverfails View Post
    http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/l...n_Seattle.html

    This article proves that this deck is really powerful, The one deck which is supposed to be optimal against ANT is Merfolk, I mean c'mon, you play cursecatcher, FOW daze, stifle, wasteland, and a fast clock, and your telling me this deck went 4-6 against ANT???????????? The only deck that it did not beat really was New horizons, which I think only 4 games is not enough to see what the ratio is.

    Now this isn't my testimony that the card should be banned, but I think that this article is running like a mob fashion, saying everything that people want to hear through this instead of actually researching the facts.
    Merfolk has won 41 of its 57 matches against ANT at SCG Opens. Overall, ANT has gone 255-276-9, winning 47.22% of matches (compare with Zoo, which has a combined record of 507-394-40, for a 53.88% win percentage). The 5Ks do not support the idea that Mystical Tutor decks were the best in the format.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. nitewolf "Professor" 9, Ph.D. View Post
    I personally like spell snare against 2 cc spells, but it really isn't good against spells that aren't 2 cc. With engineered explosives, it is a good card to have against non-land permanents with converted mana cost equal to what you set the explosives to, but it doesn't hit those that have differing cc. Plus, engineered explosives has sunburst.

  7. #27
    (' ' '\( 0 ,o)/''')
    TheInfamousBearAssassin's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2004
    Location

    Northern Virginia
    Posts

    6,627

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    Why should we credit the DCI's idea that the format is more enjoyable without Mystical Tutor? What evidence do they advance in support of such a proposition? Moreover, what is the scope of such a claim? It's a justification with limitless breadth in terms of potential applicability, and as precedent.
    Well, since Chris was the one that brought up GP: Madrid, we could use the card's disproprotionate influence there as a barometer; as Chris points out, only 8% of players chose to play a Mystical Tutor deck at that tournament, yet more than 36% of the top 8 decks used it. But that's not strict dominance. The actual argument against Mystical Tutor relied on the idea that Mystical Tutor was, and would be, a combo-enabling card alone, and combo is viewed as the least fun archetype.

    Ultimately this ruling is consistent with Wizards' previous banning policies. Raffinity wasn't dominance in Mirrodin Block Constructed, for instance, but it was banned because it made the deck that hosed it, Mono Red, utterly dominant, by knocking out anything else. I would argue that combo performed a similar role. The only deck widely regarded as tier 1 that didn't run either Mystical Tutor or Force of Will was Zoo. A format where you have one option outside of combo and blue control isn't interesting to most people.

    There's going to be collateral damage here, as some people certainly enjoyed Legacy with M. Tutor, but those people are probably in a minority. It's not unreasonable for Wizards to act as they did. And it's more interesting that they'd ban a combo enabler than go around banning each combo piece-meal as it became problematic.

    The more summarized version of DCI's logic can be found in a different LaPille article;

    Many restricted cards are famously powerful. However, the DCI does not create the restricted list by applying an objective measurement of power across all Magic cards and restricting all cards that are above a certain power level. Instead, the DCI uses the restricted list to sculpt an environment that is fun and diverse. Magic developers test standard to make sure there are lots of different reasonable decks to play that are enjoyable. We have the same goals for other formats, and we recommend changes to the DCI when we notice that one of them is becoming stagnant.
    For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
    And found I was for endurance made

  8. #28

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Coppola
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom LaPille
    When we saw the Grand Prix–Madrid finals decks, a few of us got worried, jumped onto Magic Online, and started playing some Legacy with them.
    This is inaccurate. There is no such thing as Legacy in Magic Online, mainly due to the fact that Magic Online is missing around fifteen expansions. So this anecdote has no relevance to what is going on in real Legacy.
    Ha! I actually laughed out loud on that one. Good article.

  9. #29

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    After following the article of Stephen Menendian posted earlier in this thread I have to say his assumption of player skill lacks a little logic:
    Zoo is very easy to pilot, it is in fact the easiest to pilot deck in legacy because you have only one strategy to win no matter the opposing deck. You do not need to know anything about the deck strategies and the possible plays of your opponent to win, you just do your thing.
    Reanimator and ANT are way harder to pilot (and to adopt to the meta) because they have to adept to opposing deck strategies, boarded hate and they have to anticipate those. They actually play cards interacting with those strategies (counterspells, discard etc).
    If we assume players skill is equally distributed between deck types the bad pilots will have more impact on reanimator/ANT statistics then on zoo statistics.

    If we add this to the statistics given in the article, one can clearly see ANT and Reanimator outperforming all other decks.
    Another argument is that an instant tutor for 1 mana coming EOT drawing the card before your opponent can react with discard, definitely bypasses legacy standards in terms of bypassing randomness. I do not think demonic tutor would perform that much better in ANT or Reanimator, given it's sorcery speed at 2 mana.
    I think the banning of mystical tutor is perfectly justified, and I would perfectly be ok with it if they banned enlightened tutor.
    On the other hand I dislike the rise of zoo for I think it is a boring, straight forward sligh deck packing a little more undercosted vanillas. Maybe with the nerf for combo we see a more popular use of control decks (my favorite deck type) being able to handle zoo and hence see more black variants ripping control. Seeing the metagame being split between aggro and combo does not look like a healthy format to me given the lack of control.

  10. #30
    Don't ping the hydra
    DrJones's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2007
    Location

    Spain
    Posts

    107,480

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    I think there's a misconception that Aggro decks like Zoo are easier to play than other decks. While it's true that the learning curve is much lower than some other decks, their manoeuvrability is very low compared with control decks, which make overcoming obstacles pretty hard for the inexperienced.

    Let's say a control deck is perceived as difficult to play because it has "options", for example, you can choose to counter a creature with Daze, or use Swords to Plowshares. In some situations, one will be more beneficial than the other, and it certainly requires skill to get the most from these plays. However, both options get the job done. A control deck is like a car because you can choose one route or another to get to point B.

    Now, an aggro deck is like a train with only one route, so you cannot get lost, but because a train cannot suddenly stop nor change directions, if faced with an obstacle that you didn't foresee, you inevitably trainwreck. Of course, you can play as if no obstacles could appear (which takes more luck than skill), but you won't get very far that way. A well played aggro deck requires to know when to accelerate to bypass an obstacle that is going to happen soon, and amironating far before a trouble comes to have time to react.

    Example: Let's say I have one Lightning Bolt in my hand. I can throw it at my opponent's head, I can use it on an opponent's creature to open a way to my beaters, or I can keep in my hand so that when I draw another burn spell, I'll have enough to deal with a bigger creature that has yet to be cast, but that cannot stay on board or I lose (for example, an exalted angel that I have no other way to deal with).

    The kind of maneuver that requires waiting for cards to be drawn while letting lesser threats to live is hard to master, specially because aggro decks tend to have far worse answers to threats and more convoluted ways to deal with them. Sometimes, your only option to escape a bad position is to trick the opponent into making a misplay, and doing it "legit" (that is, without cheating or lying to your opponent) requires sacrificing resources and desperate plays to trick the opponent into making a risky move.

    I once beat a Kahmal, Pit Fighter with a mono-green deck by topdecking creatures and letting them die to its ability until I topdecked and played a land, leaving my board empty of creatures. The opponent attacked, thinking that Kahmal could get through, and then I played an instant that put a token into play that blocked it. It was an awesome play, yet unreliable, and also the only way I had to pass the obstacle with a deck so limited in answers!!

    For me, aggro decks are far more demanding than control. I even play control decks to rest between games. If I cast a removal spell too early, I know I'll draw another without having to resort to desperate tactics that require thinking several turns in advance and praying for good luck.

  11. #31
    Plays green decks
    Jak's Avatar
    Join Date

    Nov 2006
    Location

    Portland
    Posts

    2,184

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Deciding to Daze or Swords to Plowshare a creature ends up effecting much more than just the present. Sure, they both could solve the problem that the creature creates but you have to decide which one solves it better (ie leaves you in a better position), which card is more valuable later on, and which card ultimately helps your strategy work. You have to weigh all these and factor them into your decision because later on you will know if that decision was right or wrong.

  12. #32
    (' ' '\( 0 ,o)/''')
    TheInfamousBearAssassin's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2004
    Location

    Northern Virginia
    Posts

    6,627

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    I liked Chris's article, but I think your criticisms are largely justified.

    Jared Sylva has given me a sneak peek of the St. Louis data, and in the final part of my article next Monday, I offer a comprehensive critique of the banning of Mystical Tutor. I hope you find my arguments, which are tighter, more persuasive.
    I'd probably have to read them over someone else's shoulder or get back to you in six months. It's not that I don't think there are arguments against Wizards' decision, but I don't think there is a clear cut argument here. It really depends how much you enjoy a format that is or isn't largely dominated by combo + blue decks.
    For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
    And found I was for endurance made

  13. #33

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Zur View Post
    Merfolk has won 41 of its 57 matches against ANT at SCG Opens. Overall, ANT has gone 255-276-9, winning 47.22% of matches (compare with Zoo, which has a combined record of 507-394-40, for a 53.88% win percentage). The 5Ks do not support the idea that Mystical Tutor decks were the best in the format.
    Could you show a list that proves this, or actual breakdowns at tournies, or something to prove of your stat, I atleast linked to the articles to show where my facts come from, I could say this ]Merfolk has won21 of its 57 matches against ANT at SCG Opens..... how could you tell me im wrong if we believe that by me saying this, that is enough to believe it.

  14. #34
    Treshplayer
    Mad Zur's Avatar
    Join Date

    Dec 2003
    Location

    VA
    Posts

    611

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    I believe this thread has links to all of the metagame breakdowns I'm aware of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. nitewolf "Professor" 9, Ph.D. View Post
    I personally like spell snare against 2 cc spells, but it really isn't good against spells that aren't 2 cc. With engineered explosives, it is a good card to have against non-land permanents with converted mana cost equal to what you set the explosives to, but it doesn't hit those that have differing cc. Plus, engineered explosives has sunburst.

  15. #35

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin View Post
    Well, since Chris was the one that brought up GP: Madrid, we could use the card's disproprotionate influence there as a barometer; as Chris points out, only 8% of players chose to play a Mystical Tutor deck at that tournament, yet more than 36% of the top 8 decks used it. But that's not strict dominance. The actual argument against Mystical Tutor relied on the idea that Mystical Tutor was, and would be, a combo-enabling card alone, and combo is viewed as the least fun archetype.

    Ultimately this ruling is consistent with Wizards' previous banning policies. Raffinity wasn't dominance in Mirrodin Block Constructed, for instance, but it was banned because it made the deck that hosed it, Mono Red, utterly dominant, by knocking out anything else. I would argue that combo performed a similar role. The only deck widely regarded as tier 1 that didn't run either Mystical Tutor or Force of Will was Zoo. A format where you have one option outside of combo and blue control isn't interesting to most people.

    There's going to be collateral damage here, as some people certainly enjoyed Legacy with M. Tutor, but those people are probably in a minority. It's not unreasonable for Wizards to act as they did. And it's more interesting that they'd ban a combo enabler than go around banning each combo piece-meal as it became problematic.

    The more summarized version of DCI's logic can be found in a different LaPille article;
    I don't think you answered a single one of the questions I posed.

    1) If it's your view that the DCI's ground of decision was to make the format more fun, and NOT about tournament dominance, which is what you suggested in response to Chris' article, then: Why should we credit the DCI's idea that the format is more enjoyable without Mystical Tutor?

    2) What statistically significant or logical evidence do they advance in support of such a proposition?

    3) What is the scope of such a claim? It's a justification with limitless breadth in terms of potential applicability, and as precedent. How can such a claim be principly cabined?

  16. #36
    (' ' '\( 0 ,o)/''')
    TheInfamousBearAssassin's Avatar
    Join Date

    May 2004
    Location

    Northern Virginia
    Posts

    6,627

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by Smmenen View Post
    I don't think you answered a single one of the questions I posed.

    1) If it's your view that the DCI's ground of decision was to make the format more fun, and NOT about tournament dominance, which is what you suggested in response to Chris' article, then: Why should we credit the DCI's idea that the format is more enjoyable without Mystical Tutor?
    Because the vast majority of players hate combo. And this is an established fact of the game. Which the DCI has acted on in numerous formats since it's inception. The overwhelming precedent is that a combo deck can be nerfed even when it's not the top deck in the metagame.

    2) What statistically significant or logical evidence do they advance in support of such a proposition?
    None. Why do you think they need any? It's an appeal to ethos, not logos.

    3) What is the scope of such a claim? It's a justification with limitless breadth in terms of potential applicability, and as precedent. How can such a claim be principly cabined?
    Again, this is a false assumption. Who should limit the power of Wizards to regulate their own game, and why? They have the power to do whatever they want, with or without the justification that they believe doing so will make the game more fun. Who gave them the authority to limit cards to 4x per deck? Who gave them the authority to make the minimum deck size 60? Who gave them the authority to set 50 minute round limits?

    The obvious answer is that as the owners and controllers of the game they gave themselves these privileges. You can argue whether or not such a decision is correct, but to argue over whether or not they are justified in controlling their own game is ridiculous.
    For my confessions, they burned me with fire/
    And found I was for endurance made

  17. #37

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin View Post
    Sigh.
    The amazing thing about this paragraph is how towering an edifice can be built on nothing but sand.

    This is not at all the parameters for banning laid out by the DCI or Wizards for Legacy. Moreover, it has nothing to do with why Legacy is enjoyable. No one enjoys Legacy because Enlightened Tutor is legal and Demonic Tutor isn't.
    Are you sure? I think it is fairly safe to say that demonic tutor is one of the most powerful combo-enablers ever printed. Even if it didn't make the metagame all combo versus anti-combo it would be a card that every deck (or at least the vast majority) of decks with access to black mana would play. It would also probably eliminate decks from the metagame which couldn't play it. Certainly not all non-demonic tutor decks would die, but giving black decks such a powerful tool would make it more difficult to justify not playing it. That's not inherently a bad thing as basically every deck with blue plays 4 brainstorm, but I think you'd agree that demonic tutor is on a completely different power level than demonic tutor, and decks like zoo aren't splashing blue to play brainstorm. I think you would also agree that a draw of legacy for a fair number of players is being able to play with the vast majority of their cards. Enlightened Tutor doesn't create a metagame where you're playing an E-tutor deck or a deck built to hose e-tutor decks, which I think demonic tutor would necessitate if it were in the metagame. If you have another idea of why you think legacy is enjoyable, I'd be happy to hear.

  18. #38

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by DFY889 View Post
    Are you sure? I think it is fairly safe to say that demonic tutor is one of the most powerful combo-enablers ever printed. Even if it didn't make the metagame all combo versus anti-combo it would be a card that every deck (or at least the vast majority) of decks with access to black mana would play. It would also probably eliminate decks from the metagame which couldn't play it. Certainly not all non-demonic tutor decks would die, but giving black decks such a powerful tool would make it more difficult to justify not playing it. That's not inherently a bad thing as basically every deck with blue plays 4 brainstorm, but I think you'd agree that demonic tutor is on a completely different power level than demonic tutor, and decks like zoo aren't splashing blue to play brainstorm. I think you would also agree that a draw of legacy for a fair number of players is being able to play with the vast majority of their cards. Enlightened Tutor doesn't create a metagame where you're playing an E-tutor deck or a deck built to hose e-tutor decks, which I think demonic tutor would necessitate if it were in the metagame. If you have another idea of why you think legacy is enjoyable, I'd be happy to hear.
    I do not think your comparison makes sense. If you can find the card you need to win the game, card advantage is not that deciding. Plus mystical can be played on turn 1 with virtually no mana cost, the card you search for cannot be discarded that alone is worth the card disadvantage of Mystical tutor in fast combo. If you reliably want to go off turn 2, turn 1 mystical tutor is way better then turn 2 demonic tutor. I would like to hear a word from an experienced combo player wether he'd prefer demonic or mystical tutor. I don't think mystical is that much weaker if even weaker at all (in combo decks).

  19. #39
    Bands with Others
    menace13's Avatar
    Join Date

    Jul 2009
    Location

    NY, NY
    Posts

    1,220

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe View Post
    I do not think your comparison makes sense. If you can find the card you need to win the game, card advantage is not that deciding. Plus mystical can be played on turn 1 with virtually no mana cost, the card you search for cannot be discarded that alone is worth the card disadvantage of Mystical tutor in fast combo. If you reliably want to go off turn 2, turn 1 mystical tutor is way better then turn 2 demonic tutor. I would like to hear a word from an experienced combo player wether he'd prefer demonic or mystical tutor. I don't think mystical is that much weaker if even weaker at all (in combo decks).
    I am pretty sure i would like 4 Demonic Tutors, not only do my LEDS get better, i can cut Infernal, play a sb of singelton enchantments,artifacts(Needle,Crypt,Energy Flux etc) ,always finds LED,Top, BoB. Chain Demonic into Demonic for moar storm count w/o having to go hellbent. Turn 1 winning plays are increased thru having 4 copies of on color tutor that places card in hand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cavius The Great View Post
    Respect my shine bitch!

  20. #40

    Re: The best article yet about the Mystical Tutor banning

    Quote Originally Posted by TheInfamousBearAssassin View Post
    Because the vast majority of players hate combo. And this is an established fact of the game. Which the DCI has acted on in numerous formats since it's inception. The overwhelming precedent is that a combo deck can be nerfed even when it's not the top deck in the metagame.
    Completely disagree.

    There is absolutely no statistically significant evidence that players 'hate combo per se.' What players hate is not getting to play a turn of magic AND not being able to beat that deck no matter what they do. It just so happens that, more often than not, that correlates with combo. But you are confusing correlation with causation. Show me the evidence that players 'hate combo per se'! Show me the surveys, polls, and data that supports this ridiculously broad conclusion.

    The overwhelming precedent is not that combo can be nerfed when its not at the top of the metagame. In fact, the overwhelming precedent is *against* nerfing combo when its not good. Every single time that the DCI nerfs combo, it's almost always because of the speed AND power factor.

    The overwhelming DCI precedent is that the DCI only kills combo when: 1) it's capable of winning on turn one or turn two AND 2) it's a top deck. The DCI almost never just kills combo to kill combo. You are completely wrong on that point.

    It's (1) that players don't like, not combo "per se."



    None. Why do you think they need any? It's an appeal to ethos, not logos.
    Appeals to ethos need evidentiary support as well. If I were to say that X is not fun, therefore we are banning it, you need to be able to establish that most players think that X is not fun. Here, they have not done that. It's a completely subjective assessment.

    In my article on Vintage, I wrote at length about this:

    Managing the Restricted List

    The purpose of the Banned and Restricted List is clear: to promote the health of the format and keep Vintage fun. Since everyone has their own idea about what makes Magic (and Vintage) fun, the DCI has a tough job.

    As someone on themanadrain.com said:

    I'm sure we all have opinions on the B/R list, but it always boils down to opinion and is nearly as painful as discussing politics with in-laws.

    He’s right. Everyone has a different opinion because different people have a different conception of fun. ‘Fun’ is inherently subjective. Vintage players universally enjoy playing with all of their cards, including those older broken cards, but there is little agreement beyond that. How can the DCI choose among different conceptions of fun in a principled way? That’s exactly why the standard for managing the restricted list should be objective, rather than the varying and diverse opinions of players.

    There are two things that most players agree on that can be objectively measured and implemented:

    1) Diverse formats are fun. Formats with many different archetypes to choose from and strategic options are more fun. Players can select decks more to their style and liking. This can be easily measured by looking at the number of archetypes making Top 8, or constituting more than 5% or 10% of the Top 8s, respectively.
    2) Formats with a dominant deck are unfun. Most players agree that formats strangled by a single archetype over a long period of time are not fun. See Jund, Faeries, or Affinity. Archetype dominance, too, can be objectively measured using tournament results.

    The June, 2009 restriction of Thirst For Knowledge is a perfect example of a restriction justified by the dominance of a particular deck, in this case, Tezzeret. Tezzeret was consistently outpacing every other deck in the format by wide margin, both in terms of Top 8 appearances and in terms of tournament victories.

    This graph shows the percentage of tournament victories by Tezzeret in 2009. The restriction of Thirst was hugely successful in curtailing the tournament dominance of Tezzeret, as measured by the percentage of tournament victories in that time period.

    More importantly, the restriction of Thirst helped curb the dominance of Mana Drain decks:

    This graph charts the proportion of Mana Drain decks in Vintage Top 8s from July 2008 (when Gush and company were restricted) to December of 2009. As you can see, the restriction of Thirst For Knowledge on June 20, 2009, greatly reduced the dominance of Mana Drain decks in the format, which were 45% of Top 8s, to under 30% of Top 8s.

    The example of Tezzeret and Mana Drain, addressed by the restriction of Thirst For Knowledge, gives us a clear statistical precedent for understanding when a deck or an engine becomes dominant. When a deck reaches over 25% of Top 8s over a long period of time, or an engine reaches more than 40% of the field, then we know that a restriction is probably warranted, since that deck or engine is dominating the format.

    In his article last week, Matt Elias said:

    "[T]he DCI seems to be managing Vintage out of adherence to a set of principles rather than listening to what people playing the format are saying. Even though I’ve had success with the format as-is, I think it’s time the DCI considers giving the people what they want."

    I couldn’t disagree more. Managing Vintage based upon what players want rather than on consistent principles produces the worst kinds of policy decisions, like the Yankees fan setting the rules of baseball. Most people say they prefer competitive balance in sports (hence, things like a salary cap or profit-sharing). The exception is the home team, whom the local fan would like to see win every year (like the New York Yankees). The same thing is true in Magic. Vintage Magic players prefer competitive balance, except when it comes to their pet deck.

    In his 2001 State of the Metagame Address, Oscar Tan surveyed his teammates and other Vintage notables, including Brian Weissman and myself, whether a list of cards should be restricted or not. The poll results are here. If we had followed the advice of Oscar Tan and Brian Weissman, Mishra’s Workshop, Dark Ritual, Spoils of the Vault, Chalice of the Void, Bazaar of Baghdad, Intuition, and Academy Rector would be restricted. In earlier years, the DCI listened to players like that. Matt Elias’s suggesting would take us back to a dark time in Vintage history when players like Brian Weissman and Oscar Tan could get cards restricted by complaining about them.*

    Most players enjoy diverse formats, and most players do not enjoy formats where a single strategy is dominant. Diverse formats are more fun, so it serves the purpose of the Restricted List. But it’s a standard that can be objectively measured. If players complain that a deck is unfair, then tournament results will, over time, show whether a deck can be successfully metagamed against or not. If players complain that a deck is dominating tournaments, then tournament results, over time (giving players an opportunity to metagame against the menace) will bear that out. If players complain that the format is not sufficiently diverse, then Top 8 data will bear that out. We can look at the number and variety of archetypes, strategies and engines in Vintage Top 8s.

    When the DCI manages the restricted list according to these principles, Vintage thrives. When they don’t, Vintage is harmed. The June, 2009 B/R list changes were as successful as the June, 2008 B/R list changes were disastrous.

    In June, 2008, the DCI restricted five cards when just one (or two) would have sufficed (such as Merchant Scroll) to improve the diversity in the metagame. Whenever the DCI is trying to improve the diversity of the field or check a dominant deck, this can usually be accomplished with a single restriction. That’s why every time that the DCI has restricted more than one card in the last 12 years, they’ve reversed half of those decisions (with the exception of the June, 2008 restrictions). Multiple restrictions serving the same goal is unnecessary when one will suffice. That’s exactly what happened in 2008. The restriction of Merchant Scroll alone seriously weakened both Gush and Flash decks. The restriction of Brainstorm, in addition to Merchant Scroll, made restricting either Gush or Flash largely unnecessary or, at least, extremely questionable.

    There are other possible standards for managing the restricted list, such as ‘interactivity’ (ala Trinisphere or Flash). But like any other possible standard, one person’s unfun is another person’s fun. Restricting cards based upon subjective criteria risks doing more damage than good; especially since there are often negative, unintended consequences to a restriction. Restricting a card because it’s ‘unfun’ may actually reduce the diversity in the metagame or help clear the way for a dominant deck.
    Yes, I know I was talking about Vintage, but the core concepts: 1) that the goal of the banned list is to promote the fun and health of a format, that 2) fun is inherently subjective, and that one person's fun is another persons unfun, and that 3) one thing we do know is that most players like diverse formats that arent' dominated by a single deck, and that this is a form of fun that can be measured and implemented, all remain true. And that 4) whenever the DCI bans on other grounds, it risks unintended consequences that actually reduce the of the format.

    When the DCI bans something on the basis of 'fun' it should have solid evidence that their assessment is correct, otherwise they risk making the format less fun, particularly by reducing the diversity of the format.

    A series of polls were created o the mana drain asking people if certain archetypes were fun. What was interesting was that while people said that they may not have thought that Dredge was a fun deck to play against, it's presence in the field made the format more fun.

    The same is true here. Whenever you ban on a ground other than diversity or dominance, which virtually all players agree make a format less fun, then you actually risk making the format less fun. They need good evidence that the loss of mystical tutor would make the format less fun. They appear to have none.

    Appeals to ethos, therefore, require evidentiary support. I can't imagine how you could think otherwise!



    Again, this is a false assumption. Who should limit the power of Wizards to regulate their own game, and why? They have the power to do whatever they want, with or without the justification that they believe doing so will make the game more fun. Who gave them the authority to limit cards to 4x per deck? Who gave them the authority to make the minimum deck size 60? Who gave them the authority to set 50 minute round limits?

    The obvious answer is that as the owners and controllers of the game they gave themselves these privileges. You can argue whether or not such a decision is correct, but to argue over whether or not they are justified in controlling their own game is ridiculous.
    Which, I think, proves my point. Magic players like consistent policy making. The fact that they have the *power* to do whatever they want, doesn't mean they are insulated from critique on the ground that their justification was unpersuasive, unsupported, and arbitrary and capricious.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)